ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Riverstone East Precinct:

Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment

DRAFT

For

Department of Planning and Environment

March 2015

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Fenella Atkinson, Billy Griffiths, Nadia Iacono AUTHOR/HERITAGE ADVISOR

Department of Planning and Environment PROPONENT Riverstone East Precinct: Non-Indigenous PROJECT NAME Heritage Assessment REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION March 2015 DATE

AHMS INTERNAL REVIEW/SIGN OFF

WRITTEN BY DATE VERSION REVIEWED APPROVED Fenella Atkinson, Billy Griffiths, November 2014 1 Peter Douglas Nadia Iacono November 2014 2 Susan McIntyre- March 2015 3 Tamwoy

Copyright and Moral Rights Historical sources and reference materials used in the preparation of this report are acknowledged and referenced in figure captions or in text citations. Reasonable effort has been made to identify, contact, acknowledge and obtain permission to use material from the relevant copyright owners. Unless otherwise specified in the contract terms for this project AHMS:  Vests copyright of all material produced by AHMS (but excluding pre-existing material and material in which copyright is held by a third party) in the client for this project (and the client’s successors in title);  Retains the use of all material produced by AHMS for this project for AHMS ongoing business and for professional presentations, academic papers or publications.

Cover photograph: 151 Tallawong Road, Rouse Hill.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12 1.1 Background ...... 12 1.2 Study Area ...... 12 1.3 Report Objectives and Limitations ...... 12 1.4 Authorship and Acknowledgements ...... 13 2 HERITAGE LISTINGS AND PREVIOUS STUDIES ...... 15 2.1 Heritage Listings ...... 15 2.1.1 Statutory Listings ...... 15 2.1.2 Non-Statutory Listings ...... 16 2.2 Previous Heritage Investigations...... 17 2.3 Summary of Known Heritage Items ...... 28 2.3.1 Within or Extending into the Study Area ...... 28 2.3.1.1 Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone ...... 28 2.3.1.2 Rouse Hill House and Curtilage...... 30 2.3.2 In the Vicinity of the Study Area ...... 34 2.3.2.1 Box Hill Inn ...... 34 2.3.2.2 Former Rouse Hill Public School ...... 37 2.3.2.3 Windsor Road and Associated Items ...... 37 3 HISTORY ...... 44 3.1 General ...... 44 3.2 Riverstone East Precinct ...... 48 3.2.1 Portion 95 (St Matthew) & Portion 1 (Gidley) - O'Connell ...... 50 3.2.2 Portion 2 - Martin ...... 52 3.2.3 Portions 5 and 6 - Rouse ...... 53 3.2.4 Portion 8 - Bigg ...... 54 3.2.5 Portion 9 - Faultless ...... 54 3.3 Summary ...... 55 4 SITE INSPECTION ...... 79 4.1 Survey Details ...... 79 4.2 Site Description ...... 79 4.2.1 Overview ...... 79 4.2.2 Detail ...... 79 5 NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE VALUES ...... 87 5.1 Nu Welwyn ...... 87 5.2 Potential Rummery House Remains ...... 88 5.3 Rouse Hill House ...... 88 5.4 Windsor Road ...... 89

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

6 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ...... 93 6.1 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines ...... 93 6.1.1 Heritage Act 1977 ...... 93 6.1.2 Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988 ...... 93 6.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 ...... 94 6.2 Recommendations ...... 95 7 POTENTIAL NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE IMPACT ...... 100 7.1 Draft Indicative Layout Plan (Stages 1 and 2) ...... 100 7.2 Potential Impact ...... 100 7.3 Recommendations ...... 103 8 REFERENCES...... 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Statutory heritage listings within and in the vicinity of the study area...... 15 Table 2 Non-statutory heritage listings within and in the vicinity of the study area...... 17 Table 3 Heritage items within the Windsor Road corridor (Heritage Concepts, December 2004). 20 Table 4 Heritage items within the Windsor Road corridor (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners, 2005)...... 21 Table 5 Heritage items within or in close proximity to the study area, identified in the NWGC Second Release Precincts assessment (Biosis Research, March 2011)...... 27 Table 6 Chain of title for Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone...... 29 Table 7 Previously identified heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area...... 40 Table 8 Detail of the portions comprising the study area...... 48 Table 9 Potential heritage impact as a result of the ILP for Stages 1 and 2...... 101

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Study area location...... 14 Figure 2 The recommended curtilage of the Rouse Hill Estate (Conybeare Morrison & Partners Oct 2003: Fig.5.2; reproduced in GML Oct 2010: Appendix E)...... 19 Figure 3 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 7)...... 23 Figure 4 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 8)...... 23 Figure 5 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 9)...... 24 Figure 6 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 10)...... 24 Figure 7 The Area 20 Precinct (heavy black outline) and former extent of the Rouse Hill Estate (broken red outline) (GML Oct 2010: Fig 5.3)...... 26 Figure 8 Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone (source: SHI listing)...... 30 Figure 9 Previously identified heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area...... 43 Figure 10 The study area, outlined in red, with the initial grants shaded...... 49

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 11 1813 plan showing the study area (J.Burr and G.Ballisat, 'Plan of the allotments of ground, granted from the Crown in New South Wales, State Library NSW, http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/albumview.aspx?itemID=903954&acmsid=0)...... 57 Figure 12 1840-9 Map of the Copenhagen Estate, showing Rouse's house on the opposite side of Windsor Road (National Library of Australia, Map f375-e)...... 57 Figure 13 Detail of the 1842 plan showing the study area (J Musgrave, Plan of part of the Windsor district contained between the Old Richmond Road and the Road from Windsor, State Library NSW)...... 58 Figure 14 1859 subdivision plan of Riverstone (Reuss and Browne)...... 59 Figure 15 Detail of the 1864 subdivision plan of Riverstone (Plan of Riverstone near Windsor to be sold by Auction by T.W. Bowden On The Ground Decr 3rd 1864)...... 59 Figure 16 1867 plan of Guntawong Road. Note that the plan is oriented with north to the left (Plan of a road from the Windsor Road via the Riverstone Railway Station at Eastern Creek to the Blacktown Road, LPI Crown Plan 502.1603)...... 60 Figure 17 1879 plan of Schofields Road (Plan of road from Schofield's Siding to Rouse Hill, Parish of Gidley, Co. Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 1803.1603)...... 61 Figure 18 Detail of the 1881 subdivision plan of Portion 1 (Subdivision of part of the Riverstone Estate at Riverstone in the Parish of Gidley, LPI DP 712)...... 61 Figure 19 Detail of the 1884 subdivision of part of Portion 95 (Rosebery Park near Riverstone, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland LPI DP 1459)...... 62 Figure 20 1885 plan of Windsor Road; First Ponds Creek to Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603)...... 63 Figure 21 1885 plan of Windsor Road; to the south of Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603)...... 63 Figure 22 1885 plan of Windsor Road; Portion 2 (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603)...... 64 Figure 23 1885 plan of Windsor Road; Portions 2 and 6 (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603)...... 64 Figure 24 1925 plan with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red, and the stuctures within the study area circled in green. Note that the roads may have been updated in 1942 (New South Wales, Windsor: no. 416 zone 8, prepared by Australian Section Imperial General Staff, State Library of NSW, http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/albumView.aspx?itemID=917966&acmsid=0)...... 65 Figure 25 1947 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red (LPI)...... 66 Figure 26 Undated plan, probably from the early 1950s, showing that part of the study area to the north of Garfield Road East (Electricity Commission of NSW, Carlingford-Lithgow 132 kv Transmission Line Index Plan, LPI Crown Plan 16981.3000)...... 67 Figure 27 1951 plan showing the transmission easement off Junction Road (Plan of easement being part of Lots 4 & 16, Sec.28, D.P.1459, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 13870.3000)...... 67 Figure 28 1955 plan showing the transmission easement to the west of Junction Road (Carlingford to Lithgow 132kV Transmission Line Plan, showing site of easement proposed to be resumed for transmission line, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 15915.3000)...... 68 Figure 29 1956 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundary of the study area marked in red (LPI)...... 69 Figure 30 1957 plan of the subdivision of the area on either side of Tallawong Road (Plan of subdn. of part of the land in CsT Vol.1381 Fols. 132 & 133, Parish of Gidley, County of Cumberland, LPI DP 30186)...... 70 Figure 31 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road to the south of Junction Road (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road, LPI Crown Plan 17902.3000)...... 70

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 32 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Junction Road and Garfield Road East (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road, LPI Crown Plan 17903.3000)...... 71 Figure 33 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Garfield Road East and Nelson Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17782.3000)...... 72 Figure 34 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Nelson Road and Box Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17783.3000). .... 73 Figure 35 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Box Road and Annangrove Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17784.3000)...... 73 Figure 36 1965 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundary of the study area marked in red (LPI)...... 74 Figure 37 1968 plan of the proposed creation of the stretch of Junction Road to the south of Crown Street (Plan of proposed road, County Cumberland, Municipality Blacktown, LPI Crown Plan 30859.1603)...... 75 Figure 38 1969 plan of the proposed upgrading of Garfield Road East (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Garfield Road East, LPI Crown Plan 22195.3000)...... 76 Figure 39 1969 plan showing the proposed widening of Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 22196.3000)...... 77 Figure 40 1986 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red (LPI)...... 78 Figure 41 151 Tallawong Road...... 81 Figure 42 61 Macquarie Road...... 81 Figure 43 131 Tallawong Road...... 81 Figure 44 42 Tallawong Road...... 81 Figure 45 163 Tallawong Road...... 81 Figure 46 18 Clarke Street...... 81 Figure 47 136 Tallawong Road...... 82 Figure 48 Poultry sheds at 100 Worcester Road...... 82 Figure 49 View north along Junction Road from Garfield Road East...... 82 Figure 50 Worked sandstone blocks, 307 Garfield Road East...... 82 Figure 51 Commercial premises fronting Garfield Road East...... 82 Figure 52 View across the Burns Pet Food property, from an adjoining property on Guntawong Road...... 82 Figure 53 View across the lower part of the Burns Pet Food property, from an adjoining property on Guntawong Road...... 83 Figure 54 Guntawong Road, looking west from Cudgegong Road...... 83 Figure 55 Concrete culvert in Guntawong Street...... 83 Figure 56 Riverstone Road, looking east from Clarke Street...... 83 Figure 57 Schofields Road, looking west...... 83 Figure 58 Former alignment of the southern end of Tallawong Road...... 83 Figure 59 Nu Welwyn from Clarke Street...... 84 Figure 60 Nu Welwyn from Clarke Street...... 84 Figure 61 Nu Welwyn outbuildings from Clarke Street...... 84 Figure 62 Nu Welwyn from the south...... 84 Figure 63 Looking south along Clarke Street. Nu Welwyn is on the rise on the left, but obscured by the more recent house to the north...... 84 Figure 64 View to the north-west from the front of the Nu Welwyn property...... 84

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 65 View to the south from the front of the Nu Welwyn property...... 85 Figure 66 View east to the Rouse Hill House group from Worcester Street...... 85 Figure 67 View east to the Rouse Hill House group from Worcester Street...... 85 Figure 68 View south to the Rouse Hill House group from Guntawong Street...... 85 Figure 69 View to the north from Guntawong Road, from immediately to the north of the Rouse Hill House group...... 85 Figure 70 Entrance to Rouse Hill Regional Park, off Worcester Street...... 85 Figure 71 Rouse Hill Regional Park, looking south-east from Worcester Street...... 86 Figure 72 The Rouse Hill House group from across Rouse Hill Regional Park...... 86 Figure 73 Non-Indigenous heritage items of relevance to the study area (source of base map: LPI, SIXMaps)...... 90 Figure 74 Nu Welwyn, showing the listed property and the larger historical estate...... 91 Figure 75 Various interpretations of the Rouse Hill House curtilage...... 92 Figure 76 Nu Welwyn: recommendations...... 98 Figure 77 Rouse Hill House: recommended curtilage and precinct...... 99 Figure 78 Draft Indicative Layout Plan for Stages 1 and 2 of the Riverstone East Precinct (Department of Planning and Environment)...... 104

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Riverstone East Precinct is located within the North West Growth Centre, and is within the Blacktown Local Government Area. It comprises approximately 656 hectares to the east of First Ponds Creek, north of Schofields Road and west of Windsor Road.

The Precinct was released for planning in August 2013. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is in the process of preparing the relevant Precinct Plan, which includes Urban Form Analysis that will result in identification of the future development footprint. The Analysis is informed by a number of technical studies addressing various matters, including non-Indigenous heritage. The present report addresses the non-Indigenous heritage of the Riverstone East Precinct.

History

The study area comprises parts or all of seven portions alienated from the Crown between 1810 and 1818. Two of the portions were consolidated in O’Connell’s Riverstone / Mount Macquarie Estate, and three in Rouse’s Rouse Hill Estate. The sixth portion was acquired by Samuel Henry Terry, who also owned the Box Hill estate, on the opposite side of Windsor Road. The seventh was incorporated into Bigg’s Argown estate.

The nineteenth century agricultural uses of the properties involved clearing of vegetation, cultivation, establishment of orchards, and grazing. The principal structures on the estates appear in all cases to have been located outside the boundaries of the study area. However, less substantial structures, such as stock yards, are known to have been present in places. The Rouse Hill estate remained intact through to the 1950s. Portion 2, to the north, was subdivided, but into only a few large lots, and the bulk of this property was used as a pig farm, then as a knackery with associated pasture from 1950 through to the present.

The Riverstone estate was subdivided in stages, from the 1880s onwards. However, most of the small lots included in the present study area were bought in two parcels, by members of the Rummery family, who were already well established in the area. The house Nu Welwyn was built on one of these parcels, and it appears that another house, since demolished, was also built on the other parcel. Subdivision of the estates, with the exception of Portion 2, into much smaller residential / semi-rural lots was undertaken in the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1980s, most of these lots had been developed by the construction of houses and their associated outbuildings and agricultural structures.

The documentary evidence indicates that the vast majority of the standing structures within the study area date to the late twentieth century, most having been constructed between c1955 and c1985. There may be two or three structures in the study area that were built during the early twentieth century. Only one structure built during the late nineteenth century is known to remain within the study area: Nu Welwyn. Archaeological evidence of the other Rummery house may also be present within soil deposits at its historic location.

Apart from Nu Welwyn, it is unlikely that standing structures from the nineteenth century are present within the study area. The principal residences of the estates concerned are known to have been located elsewhere. Less substantial structures, associated with agricultural use of the properties, may have been built on the various historic land parcels, but they are not identifiable in the documentary records accessed during research for this assessment. Further to this, it is considered to be unlikely that more research would assist in identifying the locations of any such structures, as this type of building was often not considered worthy of documentation. Any archaeological remains of such buildings are likely to be relatively insubstantial and to have been disturbed to various degrees by subsequent development.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Non-Indigenous Heritage Values

Historical occupation of the Riverstone East Precinct has involved substantial changes to the landscape, particularly with regard to vegetation clearance and creation of dams. However, development has been relatively dispersed, and has tended to be conservative in nature. That is, new development has been added, while the older modifications have often been retained rather than demolished or otherwise obscured. This 'layering' of the material evidence of past occupation within the study area means that the history of the area is readily apparent.

A number of specific items of non-Indigenous heritage significance (or potential significance) have been identified within the Riverstone East Precinct, or in close proximity to the Precinct:

Nu Welwyn

The listed heritage curtilage of Nu Welwyn covers a small part of Lot 5 DP 229296, including the house and yard. It does not include all of the present outbuildings, or the locations of the historical outbuildings as indicated by the available documentary evidence. In addition, the documentary record indicates that the Nu Welwyn property, from 1881 to c1928, consisted of a strip of land approximately 190m wide running along the eastern side of Clarke Street from Garfield Road East in the north to Guntawong Road in the south. In the late 1920s, that part of the property to the south of Riverstone Road was sold off. At one stage, the property also included Lot 9 of Section O; the property on the northwest corner of Clarke Street and Riverstone Road.

The original historical boundaries of that part of the property to the north of Riverstone Road are still apparent in the present cadastral boundaries. This area has been only very sparsely developed since subdivision, and the rural setting of the house and outbuildings has therefore been substantially retained. For this reason also, and because the house is set on a rise, the dwelling has expansive viewlines to and from the south. The configuration of the house suggests that it may originally have been oriented south. To the north, the viewlines are interrupted by a more recently constructed dwelling.

Potential Rummery House Remains

A second house, similar in date to Nu Welwyn and built by another branch of the Rummery family, is thought to have been located in that part of the study area to the north of Garfield Road East and east of Junction Road. The exact nature and location of the former structure is not known. It is shown in the relatively schematic 1925 plan but is not apparent in the 1947 aerial photograph. In addition, while it is not known whether or not any remains of the house may exist as buried archaeological deposits within the study area, dressed sandstone blocks observed within the property known as 307 Garfield Road East may indicate remains of the house in this location.

Taking into consideration the date of the house, the absence of documentary evidence regarding its use and configuration and its probable association with the regionally important Rummery family, any remains of the building would likely be local heritage significance. Additional investigation would be required in order to accurately determine the location, nature and condition of any archaeological remains of this house.

The historical connection of the location of the former house to Box Hill Inn, on the opposite side of Windsor Road and outside the present study area, is also of relevance. The two properties were owned by branches of the same family, and were connected at one stage by a path or track. Viewlines between the two locations may therefore be of some heritage significance.

Rouse Hill House

The heritage listed curtilage surrounding Rouse Hill House and its principal outbuildings is located immediately outside the study area. However, the study area includes much of the original Rouse Hill

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS estate (which had been consolidated by the mid-1820s, and which remained intact through to c.1950). The historical setting of the house, within a large agricultural estate, has been substantially reduced as a result of the subdivision, sale and development of much of the historic property.

However, the listing of the immediate surrounds, together with the creation of Rouse Hill Regional Park, has resulted in conservation of part of the property as public open space. In addition, the adjacent section of Windsor Road has been realigned, in order to take the line of this increasingly busy road further away from the house. An area to the north-west of the house is set aside as a Cultural Heritage Landscape Area (CHLA) in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. The reasoning behind the selection of this area as a CHLA is related to the heritage significance of Rouse Hill House, however the area is in fact located outside the historic Rouse Hill estate boundary. However, the present lack of development across this area contributes to the existence of substantial viewlines from the present Rouse Hill House.

A study was undertaken in 2003 to address the issue of an appropriate curtilage for the house (Conybeare Morrison & Partners Oct 2003). The recommended curtilage appears to have been determined based upon the contemporary rural setting of the house, and the contemporary viewlines to and from the house, rather than the historic boundaries of the Rouse Hill estate. The curtilage extends across a large part of the present study area. The majority of this area has already been subdivided and developed, although at a low density for residential and rural use.

Windsor Road

The heritage significance of Windsor Road has been addressed in a number of previous studies and listings. For the most part, the heritage significance of the road is associated with its alignment and material remains, neither of which will be affected by future development within the study area. The specific views identified in the CMP (CLSP Aug 2005) are similarly unlikely to be affected by future development within the study area, however, the CMP does suggest that more general views may also be of relevance with regard to the significance of the road.

Recommendations

General

 The roads and cadastral boundaries representing significant historical property divisions should be retained (see Figure 10).

 The distinct character of the historical estates should be recognised in specific development controls; the Rummery section of Portion 95; the Nu Welwyn estate; Portion 2; and the Rouse Hill estate.

 Planning should be co-ordinated with that of the neighbouring Precincts (Area 20 and Riverstone) to allow the whole of the historical extent of the Rouse Hill estate to be recognised. Nu Welwyn

 The extent of the listed heritage item should be increased to correspond with the present property boundary (Lot 5 DP 229296) (Figure 76). This would assist in the protection of the standing structures, together with any other elements of the main homestead group that may remain.

 The northern part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate (to the north of Riverstone Road) should be retained as open space, with the exception of the heritage listed property (Figure 76). This would allow retention of that part of the original property that remains apparent, and viewlines to and from the homestead group.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

 That part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate located to the west of Clarke Street should be retained as open space (the present Lot 9 Section O DP 712) (Figure 76). This would allow the historical access to First Ponds Creek to be re-established.

 Proposed development within the expanded listed item and the northern part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate (shaded green in Figure 76) should be subject to heritage impact assessment, either by way of assessment specific to the proposed development or a more general document such as a conservation management plan. This would allow potential for heritage impact to be avoided or minimised.

 Subdivision and development within the southern part of the original estate associated with the house (Figure 76) should incorporate elements that allow the historical extent of the former estate to be understood. In particular, the property boundaries, as currently represented by Riverstone and Guntawong Road and Clarke Street should be retained; and the former eastern boundary should be represented in alignments such as cadastral boundaries and street and path alignments. Potential Rummery House Remains

 Further historical archaeological assessment and investigation should be undertaken to determine whether remains associated with the house are present, and if so, to assess their nature and condition.

 If associated archaeological remains are present and these have been preserved at a high level of integrity, these should be preserved in situ if possible. Such preservation is likely to require restrictions on development in the affected area.

 Existing view lines between the probable location of the former house, on the high ground within Portion 95, and the existing Box Hill Inn, should be conserved as far as possible. This would allow one element of the historical connection between the two properties to be retained. Rouse Hill House

 The extent of the curtilage of the listed heritage item should be increased to extend to Worcester Road in the west and Guntawong Road in the north (Figure 77). This would assist in the conservation of the setting of the main homestead group, and viewlines to and from the group and the surrounding area, and in reinforcing the connection of the listed item with the wider historical estate.

 If possible, the extended curtilage should be recognised in modifications to the local heritage listing (in the Environmental Heritage Schedule of the Blacktown LEP) and/or to the State Heritage Register listing, in order to give the area statutory protection. The relevant development controls would then apply to this extended curtilage.

 Proposed development within the expanded listed item should be subject to heritage impact assessment, either by way of assessment specific to the proposed development or a more general document such as a conservation management plan. This would allow potential for heritage impact to be avoided or minimised.

 Proposed development of the properties adjacent to and to the west of Worcester Road should be subject to heritage impact assessment. This would assist in the conservation of the setting of the main homestead group.

 The cultural heritage landscape area, as listed in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, should be extended to Guntawong Road in the south and Garfield Road East in the north (Figure 77). This should be retained as open space. The

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

development controls within the SEPP should be amended accordingly, and should cover the extended listing. This would assist in conservation of viewlines to and from the main homestead group and the surrounding area. Windsor Road

 The cultural heritage landscape area, as listed in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, should be extended to Guntawong Road in the south and Garfield Road East in the north (Figure 77). This should be retained as open space. The development controls within the SEPP should be modified to address the potential for impact on the setting of this section of Windsor Road. This would allow a section of the rural setting of the road, which has been identified as being of heritage significance, to be retained. Draft Indicative Layout Plan

DPE has prepared a draft Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) showing the proposed zoning of Stages 1 and 2 of the Riverstone East Precinct. Stage 1 will provide for approximately 1,800 dwellings, in low, medium and high density areas. It will also include an employment area, a general industrial area, local parks, a sporting field, and areas set aside for environmental and water management. Stage 2 will allow for approximately 1,400 dwellings, in low and medium density areas, and an environmental living area. It will also include a village centre, local parks, a playing field, an indicative school site, and areas set aside for water management.

The ILP itself will not result in heritage impact, as it is a planning instrument only and will not involve development. However, subsequent subdivision and development allowed by the ILP is likely to result in impact on two identified heritage items:

 Nu Welwyn.

 Rouse Hill House (estate and broader curtilage only). The following recommendations are intended to address the potential historical heritage impact of the draft ILP (Stages 1 and 2). They should be read in conjunction with the general recommendations (outlined above), which are considered still to apply, and should be referred to in the event that changes to the draft ILP are proposed. Responsibility for the broader requirements should be discussed between DPE and Blacktown City Council.

Nu Welwyn

 Prior to the release of the land for development, an archival recording should be made of Nu Welwyn and the property formerly associated with the item. The recording should include photography and a survey, and a report outlining the history of the property and assessing the heritage significance of extant features and the historical archaeological potential of the property. This will form a basis for assessing any proposed development of the area. The remaining recommendations relating to Nu Welwyn should be reassessed in light of the results of this recording and report.

 Subdivision and development within the original property associated with Nu Welwyn should incorporate heritage interpretation allowing the history of the property to be understood. An overall heritage interpretation strategy should be developed to guide individual developers, based on the results of the initial reporting (see above).

 The proposed local road transecting Lot 5 DP 229296 should be realigned or removed, to allow the full extent of this Lot to be retained as one property.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

 The extent of the listed heritage item should be increased to correspond with the present property boundary (Lot 5 DP 229296).

 Proposed subdivision of land within that part of the former Nu Welwyn property to the south and east of the realigned Clarke Street should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority. Depending on the results of this assessment, subsequent development may also require a Statement of Heritage Impact.

 Proposed subdivision and development of that part of the former Nu Welwyn property to the north of the realigned Clarke Street should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority.

 A building setback should be required for those lots adjacent to the former alignment of Clarke Street, to the north of the listed item Nu Welwyn. The setback should be adequate to reinstate and preserve views to and from the house along this alignment. Rouse Hill House

 Proposed subdivision of the area falling within the curtilage of Rouse Hill House, as recommended in the 2003 study, should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority. Subsequent development should be designed with consideration of the results of the Statement of Heritage Impact, and in such a way as to avoid or minimise impact on views and landscape features of heritage significance.

 Proposed subdivision of the area falling within the former Rouse Hill estate should retain the boundaries of the former estate, as presently evident in cadastral boundaries and roads.

 Proposed development of the area falling within the former Rouse Hill estate should incorporate heritage interpretation allowing the extent and history of the property to be understood. An overall heritage interpretation strategy should be developed to guide individual developers.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The North West and South West Growth Centres were established by the New South Wales Government in 2005. It is intended that land within the Growth Centres will be, rezoned for planned, development in stages over the next 25 to 30 years, to allow for the growth of Sydney.

The Riverstone East Precinct is part of the North West Growth Centre. It was released for planning in August 2013. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is in the process of preparing the relevant Precinct Plan, including Urban Form Analysis that will result in identification of the future development footprint. The Analysis is informed by a number of technical studies addressing various matters, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage.

DPE has commissioned Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd (AHMS) to prepare the Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage assessments for the Riverstone East Precinct. This report addresses the non-Indigenous heritage assessment. Indigenous heritage assessment of the Precinct is addressed in a separate report (AHMS August 2014, draft).

1.2 Study Area

The Riverstone East Precinct is located within the North West Growth Centre, and is within the Blacktown Local Government Area (Figure 1). It is to the east of First Ponds Creek, north of Schofields Road and west of Windsor Road. It comprises approximately 656 hectares.

1.3 Report Objectives and Limitations

The current assessment report has the following objectives:

 Identify and map items and places of non-Indigenous heritage significance.

 Provide recommendations for the management of the identified non-Indigenous heritage items and places in the precinct planning process, with regard to their heritage significance and the relevant legislative requirements. It has been prepared in accordance with the following principal documents:

 Department of Planning and Infrastructure, n.d., 'Part C - Scope of Works - PROC- 1000270: Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment: Riverstone East Precinct and Vineyard Precinct'.

 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, 2013.

 Assessing Heritage Significance, Heritage Office, 2001.

 Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics, Heritage Branch, 2009.

 Heritage Curtilages, Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996. The research undertaken for the report was based largely upon secondary sources, with some limited primary research. The field investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey along public thoroughfares, and involved only limited access to private properties. No subsurface investigation, to confirm

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS archaeological potential, was undertaken. The report should not be considered as a comprehensive assessment of the historical archaeological potential of the study area.

1.4 Authorship and Acknowledgements

This report was written by Fenella Atkinson, Billy Griffiths and Nadia Iacono, with mapping undertaken by Michelle Lau and Sebastian Curry-Bowran. A draft of the report was reviewed by Peter Douglas (Director) and Dr Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy (Associate Director). The generous assistance of the following people is gratefully acknowledged:

 Evelyn Ivinson, Department of Planning and Environment.

 Margaret Fallon, Blacktown City Council.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 1 Study area location.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 14 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2 HERITAGE LISTINGS AND PREVIOUS STUDIES

A review of relevant statutory and non-statutory heritage listings, and available previous reports was undertaken to identify known heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area. With regard to listed heritage items in the vicinity, only those immediately adjacent to the study area have been considered during preparation of this assessment.

2.1 Heritage Listings

2.1.1 Statutory Listings A number of heritage lists have been established by Commonwealth and State legislation. Items on these lists are protected by relevant heritage legislation (discussed in Section 6.1). The following statutory heritage lists were reviewed for items within and in the vicinity of the study area:

 World Heritage List.

 National Heritage List.

 Commonwealth Heritage List.

 State Heritage Register.

 Section 170 (Heritage Act 1977) Heritage and Conservation Registers (as incorporated into the State Heritage Inventory).

 Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988.

 Draft Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2013.

 The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.19 Rouse Hill Development Area

 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 The review results are summarised in Table 1. In brief, there are three listed item within the study area, and three in the vicinity of the study area.

Table 1 Statutory heritage listings within and in the vicinity of the study area.

Register Items within the study area Items in the vicinity of the study area World Heritage List National Heritage List Commonwealth Heritage List State Heritage Register Box Hill Inn, Windsor Road, Box Hill (Lot 11 DP 1009338). SHR No.27. Rouse Hill House and Farm, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill. SHR No.2. Roads and Maritime Services Item 4301011 Old Windsor Road and S170 Heritage and Windsor Road Heritage Precincts: Conservation Register Precinct WR6: Vineyard Alignment; Precinct WR7: First Ponds Creek Alignment; Precinct WR8 Box Hill Vergescape; WR10 Rouse Hill Road Cutting.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Register Items within the study area Items in the vicinity of the study area Blacktown Local 'Nu Welwyn', house, Clarke House and other buildings, Windsor Environmental Plan 1988 Street, Riverstone (part Lot 5 DP Road, Rouse Hill (Lot 1 DP 815213). 229296). Draft Blacktown Local I61: 'Nu Welwyn', house, 4 Clarke I98: Rouse Hill House, 980 Windsor Environmental Plan 2013 Street, Riverstone (part Lot 5 DP Road, Rouse Hill (Lot 1 DP 815213). 229296) State significance Local significance The Hills Local Environmental I28: Windsor Road from Baulkham Plan 2012 Hills to Box Hill. Local significance I40: Former Box Hill Inn, 751 Windsor Road, Box Hill (Lot 11 DP 1009338) State significance Sydney Regional 'Rumery Homestead' (former inn), 13 Environmental Plan No.19 Windsor Road, Box Hill (Lots 4 & 5 DP Rouse Hill Development Area 539291) Rouse Hill House and outbuildings, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (Lot 10 DP 567606) State Environmental Planning Rouse Hill cultural heritage Box Hill Inn, 751 Windsor Road, Box Policy (Sydney Region Growth landscape area Hill Centre) 2006 State significance

2.1.2 Non-Statutory Listings There are a number of non-statutory heritage lists which are relevant to the study area. Some include places and items that are otherwise also included in statutory registers. The non-statutory heritage lists that have been searched for this assessment are the:

 Register of the National Estate (RNE).

 State Heritage Inventory (SHI) (which lists places and items in State and local heritage schedules).

 Register of the National Trust of Australia (NSW). The results are summarised in Table 2. There is one listed item within the study area, and three in the vicinity.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 16 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Table 2 Non-statutory heritage listings within and in the vicinity of the study area.

Register Items within the study area Items in the vicinity of the study area

Register of the National Estate Rouse Hill House Garden, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Rouse Hill House including Stables and Outbuildings, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill State Heritage Inventory Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Rouse Hill House, 980 Windsor Road, Riverstone Rouse Hill Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road Heritage Precincts Box Hill Inn (former), Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Register of the National Trust Rouse Hill House including stables, other of Australia (NSW) buildings and curtilage. S9564. Box Hill Inn

2.2 Previous Heritage Investigations

A number of non-Indigenous heritage studies have been completed as part of previous consultancy projects undertaken within the study area or locations within close proximity to it. The following section contains a review of relevant, publicly available heritage consultancy reports.

Blacktown Heritage Study (Jonathan Falk Planning Consultants in association with Rodney Jensen and Associates, 1988)

No sites were identified within, or in the vicinity of, the study area by this study.

Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project (Casey and Lowe Associates, July 1993)

This study was a historical archaeological assessment, in advance of proposed infrastructure works over a large area immediately to the south-east of the present study area. The assessment identified one item in close proximity to the study area: the archaeological site of the former Rouse Hill Police Station (RH/40). This was shown in the 1885 survey as directly fronting onto Windsor Road. The report also identified stretches of post-and-rail and post-and-wire fencing along Windsor Road.

Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (Casey & Lowe Associates, September 1993)

This study was an historical archaeological assessment of those sections of Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road between Seven Hills Road in the south and Annangrove Road in the north, that is, to the south of the present study area.

Colonial Landscapes of the Cumberland Plain and Camden (Morris & Britton, August 2000)

This study discussed a number of surviving early colonial rural homesteads and landscapes within the Cumberland Plain and nearby areas, and also contained general observations and recommendations based on the results of the case studies. It was noted that these 'early colonial cultural landscapes are, collectively, of the early European settlers with the Australian landscape'. None of the case studies were within the present study area. However, Rouse Hill House (immediately to the south of the study area) was listed as an example of the summit model; one of three subtypes of setting,

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 17 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS defined based on the siting of the main building group relative to topographic elevation. The summit model is described as follows:

The summit homestead type refers to an early building group that has been sited on a prominent local knoll, bench, plateau, escarpment or ridgeline such that, with the (intentional) accentuation of mature trees, the group assumes a local landmark quality. There is an obvious similarity with the traditional approach to the siting of churches where early church buildings, in either rural or urban contexts, were generally sited on an elevated landform in order to accentuate the structure's prominence, especially with the addition of a tower and spire. In the case of the homestead siting model the church tower and spire is replaced by tall trees - particularly evergreen conifers such as Bunya Bunya Pines (Araucaria Bidwillii) and cypresses.

…

Significance Analysis

The building/tree group often contrasts with the surrounding open agricultural land in terms of elevation, prominence and density and type (form, colour and character) of vegetative cover. As this sharp juxtaposition defines the place's quintessential character it becomes an important aspect of cultural significance. The retention of this character would therefore be a high priority in any future decisions for the place.

…

Policy: Retain the open landscape character;

Strategy: Plan to allow a generous area of open space around the main building/tree group - preferably in traditional agricultural form - inclusive of all important related estate components based on archival and physical (and oral) evidence;

Recommendation: Ensure early building/tree group remains pre-eminent visually within, at least, the estate by retaining its traditional character and relationship to its domain - particularly the extent of contrast between the homestead group and the landscape beyond in terms of elevation and density and type of vegetative cover. Where already compromised, depending on the extent, take steps to redress the situation. Where relevant, add place to State Heritage Register and LEP Heritage Schedule and ensure appropriate zoning under the LEP.

Rouse Hill Estate Curtilage Study (Conybeare Morrison & Partners, October 2003)

Rouse Hill House and Farm is located immediately to the south of the present study area. A study of the house and farm was undertaken in 2003 to determine an appropriate curtilage for the remnant of the former Rouse Hill Estate. The 2003 report has not been reviewed for the present study and the following summary of its conclusions is taken from the Area 20 assessment (GML Nov 2010: 35-37).

The extent of the recommended curtilage is shown in Figure 2. It was determined by the following rationale:

Rouse Hill House requires a rural context as its curtilage. Views and vistas are determining factors in the nature of this estate. The traditional surrounding landscape of Rouse Hill House was that of a pastoral character and the traditional prospect from Rouse Hill House was:

 its view over the toll roads to the rural pastoral landscape of the Cumberland Plain - the role of Rouse Hill House as a tollhouse and turnpike;

 the visual and social link between the family holdings of Rouse Hill House and Box Hill House; and

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 18 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

 the visual contrast created by the juxtaposition of wooded land and cleared grazing land. From Rouse Hill Estate, vistas to important geographical features include:

 Second Ponds Creek to the south and southeast;

 surrounding wooded ridge lines to the west and northeast; and

 distant background views of the Blue Mountains escarpment and hills beyond.

Figure 2 The recommended curtilage of the Rouse Hill Estate (Conybeare Morrison & Partners Oct 2003: Fig.5.2; reproduced in GML Oct 2010: Appendix E).

Windsor Road between Mile End Road and Boundary Road, Vineyard (Therin Archaeological Consulting, November 2003)

This report is a non-Indigenous heritage assessment undertaken in advance of the proposed upgrade of Windsor Road between Mile End Road, Rouse Hill, and Boundary Road, Vineyard; that is along the eastern boundary of the present study area. The assessment identified the potential for the presence of eight alignment stones and other cultural material associated with Windsor Road, such as road surfaces and substructure, and culvert drains and causeways. The survey undertaken for the assessment resulted in the identification of remains of a former bridge over First Ponds Creek, consisting of seven wooden piles, timber cross beams and two timber abutments.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

RH/39, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (Casey & Lowe, January 2004)

This report was an archaeological assessment and research design for the test excavation of the site of a former slab and bark hut built in c1859 and demolished in 1929. The site is located on the eastern side of Windsor Road, between Commercial and Annangrove Roads; that is, to the south- east of the present study area.

First Ponds and Second Ponds Creeks Bridges (Heritage Concepts, August 2004)

This report was an assessment of two identified sites on Windsor Road:

 RTA Site No. 27: Remains of a bridge over First Ponds Creek, Box Hill.

 RTA Site No. 28: Remains of a bridge over Second Ponds Creek, Rouse Hill. The first of these sites is at the northern end of the present study area, while the second is to the south-east. At First Ponds Creek (in the north), the site consisted of timber remains of a bridge constructed prior to c1960. At Second Ponds Creek (to the south-east), the item consisted of sandstone piers, dating to 1890, and timber bridge remains. Although the crossing locations (i.e. the historic places where the bridges were built) were assessed as having heritage significance, the archaeological remains of the bridge crossings were not.

Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road Corridors (Heritage Concepts, December 2004)

This report was a strategic plan for the management of the non-Indigenous heritage items and values of the Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road corridors, completed in advance of a proposed upgrade to the roads. The report included that stretch of Windsor Road that runs alongside the present study area, and addressed a corridor 60 m in width. A number of heritage items were identified within the Windsor Road corridor that runs adjacent to the present study area (listed in Table 3). The items do not appear to have been mapped in the report, so the listings reproduced below extend slightly to the north and south of the study area, to ensure that all relevant items are captured. However, the items are designated using the numbering in the report prepared the following year by Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners (see Figure 3 to Figure 6).

Table 3 Heritage items within the Windsor Road corridor (Heritage Concepts, December 2004).

No. Name / Description Level of significance - Windsor Road from Boundary Road to Garfield Road East high State 2316 alignment stone high State 2317 alignment stone high State 2318 alignment stone high State 2319 alignment stone high State 27 bridge nil bridge crossing high State 2320 alignment stone high State 2321 alignment stone high State 3025 commercial / building 2322 alignment stone high State - Windsor Road from Garfield Road East to Annangrove Road high State 2296 alignment stone high State 2297 alignment stone high State

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 20 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2286 alignment stone high State 3028 school - 25 house -

Windsor Road between Mile End Road, Rouse Hill, and Boundary Road, Vineyard (Heritage Concepts, February 2005)

Following the assessment completed by Therin Archaeological Consulting (2003), Heritage Concepts prepared a research design and excavation methodology for several areas of identified historical archaeological potential within the corridor. The subject area consisted of that stretch of Windsor Road running along the eastern boundary of the present study area, and extending slightly to the north and south. The corridor included the locations of 14 alignment stones, the probable locations of six further alignment stones, bridge remains at the crossings of First Ponds and Second Ponds Creeks, possible remains associated with two former toll houses located on that stretch of Windsor Road between Annangrove Road and Mile End Road. The report also noted the potential for the presence of historic culverts and earlier road surfaces; two stretches of old fencing (post-and-wire, and post-and-rail) and two cuttings, one in the vicinity of Annangrove Road, and the other to the south of the intersection with Garfield Road East; both possibly made during the Second World War

Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners, August 2005)

Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners (CLSP) prepared a conservation management plan for Windsor and Old Windsor Road in advance of a major program of road widening and upgrading to be undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority (now Roads and Maritime Services). The report provided recommendations and policies relating to the non-indigenous cultural significance of the two roads and associated heritage elements to assist in retaining their significance and interpretation during and after the works program.

The CMP covered that stretch of Windsor Road that runs adjacent to the present study area. A number of heritage items were identified within and in close proximity to this stretch of the road corridor (listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 3 to Figure 6).

Table 4 Heritage items within the Windsor Road corridor (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners, 2005).

No. Name / Description Location First Ponds Creek alignment precinct First Ponds Creek old road alignment, Riverstone 27 Site of bridge Box Hill vergescape precinct trees 2320 alignment stone E303881 N6273307 2321 alignment stone E303968 N6273273 3025 Box Hill Inn / Rumery Homestead 2322 alignment stone E304222 N6273194 Views to and from Box Hill House Views to and from Rouse Hill House Box Hill House 10 Terry Road, Box Hill

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 21 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2296 alignment stone E304954 N6272867 2297 alignment stone E305057 N6272785 Riverstone post & wire fencescape precinct Post & wire fence, Riverstone 2286 alignment stone E305761 N6272001 Rouse Hill cutting precinct 25 Rouse Hill House 980 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill 3028 Former Rouse Hill Public School Rouse Hill road cutting

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 22 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 3 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Figure 4 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 7). Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 8).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 23 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 5 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Figure 6 Heritage items identified along Windsor Road (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 9). Stapleton and Partners 2005: WR 10).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 24 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Sandstone Ballast, Windsor Road, Box Hill (Heritage Concepts, October 2006)

This report relates to four sections of sandstone ballast that were revealed during works to upgrade the road pavement of Windsor Road, between First Ponds Creek and Garfield Road East. That is the stretch of road alongside the north of the present study area. The stone formed a base for the road in areas where the natural ground was considered to be soft and/or subject to flooding. The report found that the ballast could be preserved in situ.

Brick Culvert and associated Macadam Pavement, Windsor Road, Box Hill (Heritage Concepts, September 2006)

This report addresses a brick barrel culvert and associated macadam pavement that were discovered during stormwater installation works on Windsor Road, Box Hill, adjacent to the north of the present study area. The date of construction of the items was not established, but they were assessed as being of heritage significance, due to their association with the development and use of Windsor Road. The report advised that it was proposed to preserve the items in situ.

Rouse Hill Potting Shed, Rouse Hill (AHMS, September 2006)

On behalf of the Historic Houses Trust (now Sydney Living Museums), AHMS undertook test excavation on the Rouse Hill House property, to investigate the construction and use of the structure known as the Potting Shed. The investigation revealed evidence associated with attempts to manage wastewater or surface run-off from upslope, earlier phases of flooring within the structure, and a rubbish pit.

Historic Heritage of the Riverstone and Alex Avenue Precincts (ENSR / AECOM, October 2008)

This study comprised two North West Growth Centre land release areas: the Alex Avenue and the Riverstone Precincts. The survey area lies immediately west of the present study area and extends further north and south. The study identified 92 heritage sites, all within the Riverstone Precinct. All sites within and in the vicinity of the Riverstone Precinct were located in the mid-western section of the survey area, well beyond the boundary shared with the current study area. An historic "scheduled lands" area comprising small farm acreages was identified in the northern section of the survey immediately north-west of the current study.

Rouse Hill House Stage 1 Museum Education Facility, and Hawkesbury Road and Watch House, Rouse Hill (AHMS, June 2009 and May 2010)

The 2009 assessment and subsequent 2010 investigation of the Rouse Hill Watch House site aimed to test for the presence of the former structure and associated occupation deposits, and to investigate the former line of the Hawkesbury Road to the south. The investigation was undertaken within the 'Rouse Hill House and Farm' property, to the south of the present study area.

The testing for the former Watch House resulted in the identification of the site and general configuration of the structure, but found that it had been heavily disturbed by demolition and recycling/robbing of much of the associated building materials.

No early road surfaces or features associated with the line of the Hawkesbury Road were identified. The review of the archaeological evidence, together with historical documentation of early road construction suggested that the Hawkesbury Road, as originally constructed, might have been little more than a cleared track. However, the investigation revealed 20th Century surfaces and associated elements of the Windsor Road. Similar earlier roadway evidence may remain within the current study area boundary where future works are proposed along Windsor Road.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 25 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Area 20 Precinct (Godden Mackay Logan, November 2010)

The Area 20 Precinct is bound by Windsor Road to the east and Schofields Road to the south, and adjoins the present study area in the south east. The report identified three listed heritage items in close proximity to the present study area; Rouse Hill House and Farm, Box Hill Inn, and Windsor Road. No additional potential heritage items were identified. The report identified opportunities for heritage interpretation relating to the former extent of the Rouse Hill Estate, extending into the present study area (Figure 7).

With regard to historical archaeological evidence, in general, it was considered that the Area 20 Precinct had low potential. This was summarised as follows:

The study area was sparsely settled and non-intensively exploited for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The potential for archaeological relics to have been formed and survive within it is therefore generally low, with exception of Rouse Hill House and Windsor Road.

Where relics may exist, they will most likely be concentrated around the Rouse Hill House site and Windsor Road, both located outside the proposed urban development area. These would include cess pits, wells, services (excavated to a depth and therefore more likely to survive later activities) and evidence of the water-supply system such as metal water pipes and a windmill.

There is high potential for the survival of a portion of the early Windsor Road located between Rouse Road and Guntawong Road. Works in these areas should be monitored by experienced archaeologists.

Figure 7 The Area 20 Precinct (heavy black outline) and former extent of the Rouse Hill Estate (broken red outline) (GML Oct 2010: Fig 5.3).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 26 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

North West Growth Centre Second Release Precincts (Biosis Research, March 2011)

A non-Indigenous heritage assessment of the NWGC Second Release Precincts (Box Hill, Box Hill Industrial and Schofields) was undertaken in 2011. The report identified a number of heritage items within and in close proximity to the present study area (Table 5).

Table 5 Heritage items within or in close proximity to the study area, identified in the NWGC Second Release Precincts assessment (Biosis Research, March 2011).

No. Name / Description Items identified in CLSP 2005 First Ponds Creek old road alignment Site of bridge Tree lines Post and rail fence Alignment stones Additional items NW 47 Rouse Hill House NW 51 Cultural heritage landscape (in the vicinity of Rouse Hill House Estate). 1034-1106 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (part lot 8/1076228, 91/1097608 and 10/1076228) NW 60/68 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (road reserve). NW 69 Box Hill Inn. NW 118 Windsor Road alignment stone, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill (road reserve). Reburied in 2005. Item no.2286 in CLSP 2005. NW 121 Old Hawkesbury Road alignment junction 3. 2 Nelson Road, Box Hill (Lot 5/1076228). NW 124 Part of the former Rouse Hill estate between the two listings NW 47 and NW 51.

Rapid Transport Rail Facility, Tallawong Road, Schofields (Artefact Heritage, June 2013)

Artefact Heritage completed a non-Indigenous heritage assessment of a property within the present study area boundaries, prior to the proposed construction of a rail facility. The assessment area was bound by Schofields Road to the south, Tallawong Road to the east, and First Ponds Creek to the west. No heritage items were identified within the property and the potential for the presence of sites likely to contain European archaeological remains was assessed as being unlikely, with low research significance being determined for any that may remain.

The review of heritage listings for this report identified three listed items within or in close proximity to the present study area:

 Cultural Heritage Landscape Area (SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006).

 Rouse Hill House and Farm.

 Windsor Road.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 27 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2.3 Summary of Known Heritage Items

The review of relevant heritage registers and previous reports has resulted in the identification of two heritage items within, or extending into, the study area, and four in the vicinity (Table 7 and Figure 9). These are discussed below.

2.3.1 Within or Extending into the Study Area

2.3.1.1 Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone This property is currently identified as part of Lot 5 in Deposited Plan 229296, and is within the study area. The SHI listing for the item describes it as 'A large brick country homestead, probably built in two stages, in a landscaped garden dominated by a white cedar tree' (Figure 8), and has the following statement of significance:

One of the few remaining country homesteads of this type in a rural setting. The property was purchased in 1881 by John Rumery and was held by his family until 1966.

The property is within Portion 1 of the Parish of Gidley, which was granted to Maurice Charles O'Connell in 1814 (see Section 3.2.1). In 1855, following O'Connell's death in 1848, the estate was sold to Andrew Hardie McCulloch (see Table 6). It was then subdivided in a number of stages. In 1881, John Rumery of Windsor, farmer, bought Lots 1-8 of Section R (37 acres 3 roods 24 perches) and Lots 1-7 of Section S (33 acres 1 rood 14 perches) DP 712, which included the present location of Nu Welwyn. Rumery's property was the whole of that part of Portion 95 which lay on the eastern side of Clarke Street (see Figure 18).

It is likely to have been at about this time that the house was built, as the property remained in the ownership of the Rumery family until 1966, indicating that they established their family home here. A note from 1900 indicates how the property was used; 'Mr. John Rumery's orchard on the hill by the Riverstone road looks in splendid condition' (Windsor and Richmond Gazette, 5 May 1900, p.12).

On John Rumery's death in 1928, the following obituary was published in the Windsor and Richmond Gazette (28 Sept 1928, p.3):

John Rumery

Another old pioneer of the district crossed the Great Divide when Mr. John Rumery passed away at his residence, Crown-road, Riverstone, on the 20th instant. He had been ill for some considerable time, but was a good christian gentleman and bore his sufferings patiently. One of the best known and most highly esteemed residents of Riverstone, the deceased had reached the great age of 81 years, and had lived in the district practically all his life.

He was a son of the late Richard Rumery, and was born at Dural. At the age of 30 years the deceased was married at Rouse Hill to Miss Ann Stranger, a member of another well-known and highly respected family of that locality. Subsequently they settled at Riverstone, where the deceased took up farming pursuits. Besides the widow three children are left to mourn their loss, viz., Leslie, Emma and Ivy. Four children predeceased their father.

By his splendid character and high christian ideals, the late John Rumery was a man who left friends in his path through life, but no enemies. He was so scrupulously honest and fair in all his dealings that no person who would like to be called reasonable could fall out with him. His word was his bond, his promise worth its equivalent in gold, and his advice always exceeded its face value. In fact he was a man amongst men, and no man was afraid to do business with John Rumery. He always lent his support to any movement that had for its object the benefit or advancement of the town in which he lived.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 28 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

The remains were laid to rest in the Church of England cemetery at Rouse Hill on Friday in the presence of a large concourse of sorrowing relatives and friends.

The death notice for Margaret Ann Rumery, the widow of John Rumery, noted that the house was called 'Welwyn' (Windsor and Richmond Gazette, 22 Nov 1935, p.4). The name presumably derives from the village in Hertfordshire, England, although the connection with the Rumery family has not been established. The chain of title indicates that the southern part of the property, to the south of Riverstone Road, had been sold at or by the time of John Rumery's death (Table 6). For a time the family also owned Lot 9 of Section O; the lot on the north-western corner of Clarke Street and Riverstone Road. It may be that this lot was purchased to gain access to First Ponds Creek.

The 1925 plan shows the house only, on the eastern side of Clarke Street. The 1947 aerial photograph shows the house, and at least two additional structures to the rear; there also appears to be a large tree in front of the house (Figure 25). There is no orchard apparent on the property, and it may be that it was used principally as pasture at this time. The 1956 photograph is clearer, and shows three main buildings; the house and two large outbuildings; along with a number of yards and smaller structures (Figure 29). The 1965 image shows a similar layout (Figure 36). By this time, development of separate lots had commenced on that part of the former Rumery property to the south of Riverstone Road. The 1986 photograph shows the same three main structures, and indicates that subdivision and development of the northern part of the Rumery property had taken place by this stage (Figure 40).

Table 6 Chain of title for Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone.

Date Description Ref. 22 March 1814 Grant. To Maurice Charles O'Connell. Portion 1 of the Parish of Gidley. 28 Nov 1855 Conveyance. Australian Trust Company to Andrew Hardie in PA 515 McCulloch. Vol.382 Fol.126 17 Sept 1881 Certificate of title. Andrew Hardie McCulloch junior and John Vol.544 Fol.224 Mitchell Purves, both of Sydney, esquires. 977 acres 19 Sept 1881 Transfer. To Richard Rummery. Lots 1-8 Sec R and Lots 1-7 SecS Vol.544 Fol.224 DP 712. 20 Oct 1881 Certificate of title. Richard Rummery of Windsor, esquire. Lots 1- Vol.552 Fol.40 8 Section R (37 acres 3 roods 24 perches) and Lots 1-7 Section S (33 acres 1 rood 14 perches) DP 712 7 Nov 1881 Transfer. To John Rumery of Windsor, farmer. Vol.552 Fol.40 Transmission. To Emma Rumery and Ivy Rumery, expectant Vol.552 Fol.40 upon the determination of the life estate of Margaret Ann Rumery. Lots 1-8 Section R. 31 May 1929 Certificate of title. Ivy Rumery of Riverstone, spinster. Lot 9 Vol.4284 Fol.225 Section O and Lots 1-8 Section R DP 712 (41 acres 3 roods 24 perches). 21 Dec 1959 Certificate of Title. Ivy Rumery of Riverstone, spinster, and Iva Vol.7820 Fols.185- Rumery of Riverstone, spinster. Lots 1-8 Section R DP 712 (37 186 acres 3 roods 24 perches). 8 Feb 1966 Certificate of Title. Ivy Rumery of Riverstone, spinster, and Iva Vol.10233 Fols.5-6 Rumery of Riverstone, spinster. Lot 3 Section R DP 712 (4 acres 3 roods 24 perches) 20 May 1966 Transfer. To Darvill Alexander Malcolm of Chatswood, developer. Vol.10233 Fols.5-6

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 29 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Date Description Ref. 6 July 1966 Certificate of Title. Darville Alexander Malcolm of Chatswood, Vol.10349 Fol.84 developer. Lot 5 in DP 229296. 25 July 1966 Transfer. To Leslie Vajda of Quakers Hill, salesman, and Yolanda Vol.10349 Fol.84 Vajda, his wife. 29 Feb 1971 Transfer. To Ronald Trevor Lethorn of Turramurra, driver, and Vol.10349 Fol.84 Jane Lethorn, his wife. 28 June 1977 Transfer. To John Colin Barnes of Paddington, fashion designer, Vol.10349 Fol.84 and Anne Charlotte Barnes, his wife. 25 Sept 1979 Transfer. To Colin John Roberts of Riverstone East, insurance Vol.10349 Fol.84 representative, and Joan Dulcie Roberts, his wife. 21 March 1988 Transfer. To Steven John Iori and Donna Lea Iori. Vol.10349 Fol.84 5/229296

Figure 8 Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone (source: SHI listing).

2.3.1.2 Rouse Hill House and Curtilage This property is currently identified as part Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 815213, and is outside the study area, immediately to the south. However, the curtilage of the property has been interpreted as extending into the study area (see below).

The following detail is provided in the State Heritage Register listing for the item:

Statement of Rouse Hill House is one of the most significant and substantial houses of the Macquarie period significance which dates from 1810 to 1822. Rouse Hill House Estate is the largest and most complete publically owned physical record - in the form of buildings, furnishings, artefacts and landscape relationship - of the occupancy and culture of a European-Australian family, encompassing the tastes, fortunes, and endeavours of seven generations from the early 19th century to the late 20th century. The property is perhaps unique for its survival as a largely intact estate with an unbroken chain of occupancy, allowing the survival of major garden and interior elements of every period of its history to the present. This layering of artefacts and fashions is especially prevalent in the gardens where designs and physical details such as edging, fencing, planting containers, bed designs and paths provide a case history for the study of the development of garden practices in Australia. The garden is perhaps Australia's oldest surviving colonial garden in relatively intact form. The surviving physical evidence in the gardens includes borders in a variety of materials, fence and

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 30 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

gate remnants, fragments of trellis and arbours, paving and numerous soil displacements that become evident with the location's annual dry spells. These physical remains, matched with pictorial evidence from photographs, drawings and engravings of the property, and writings, have resulted in the identification of four stages of the garden's development: c.1825, c.1865, c.1885 and c.1968. This continuity and evidence of evolution of a very early intact garden from the first quarter of the 19th century to the Edwardian era and 20th century is extremely rare in Australia Physical Farm: description The property is perhaps unique for its survival as a largely intact estate with an unbroken chain of occupancy, allowing the survival of major garden and interior elements of every period of its history to the present. This layering of artefacts and fashions is especially prevalent in the gardens where designs and physical details such as edging, fencing, planting containers, bed designs and paths provide a case history for the study of the development of garden practices in Australia. Garden: The garden is perhaps Australia's oldest surviving colonial garden in relatively intact form. The surviving physical evidence in the gardens includes borders in a variety of materials, fence and gate remnants, fragments of trellis and arbours, paving and numerous soil displacements that become evident with the location's annual dry spells. These physical remains, matched with pictorial evidence from photographs, drawings and engravings of the property, and writings, have resulted in the identification of four stages of the garden's development: c.1825, c.1865, c.1885 and c.1968. This continuity and evidence of evolution of a very early intact garden from the first quarter of the 19th century to the Edwardian era and 20th century is extremely rare in Australia. The effects of new technologies in Australian estate gardening with replacement of palings with wire fences, displacement of stone and brick garden or path edgings with terracotta tile edgings etc are quite evident. Dominating the garden and seen from afar are tall, mature Araucaria pines (Bunya pine - A.bidwillii (2) and hoop pine (A.cunninghamii (5)). House: Rouse Hill House is a large two storey Georgian House set on top of a ridge which falls away gradually to all cardinal points. The house is oriented to the northeast, midway between Parramatta & Windsor. The house has a separate two storey brick service wing, offices forming an arcaded courtyard, 22 rooms, staircase hall, service stair and two cellar rooms. The house has a fine stone-flagged stair hall with cantilevered timber stair. The doors are all six panelled with some architraves and panelled jamb linings. The main house is built of sandstone with a slate roof, timber floors (kitchen, scullery, staircase, hall, arcade and verandah are flagged) and oakgrained hardwood joinery. Outbuildings: Other buildings on the site include a slab built cow shed, brick bath house, a reconstructed timber summer house, brick stables. Historical Richard Rouse (1774-1852) appears to have begun building at Rouse Hill in 1813 although the notes grant of 450 acres (182 hectares) was not made until October 1816. Sometime between 1818 and 1825 Rouse, his wife Elizabeth (1772-1849) and family moved from Parramatta to the new house. The son of an Oxfordshire cabinet maker and shop-keeper, Rouse came to the colony, free, in 1801. Prospering quickly, by 1805 he was Superintendent of Public Works and Convicts at Parramatta. In this role he supervised the building of Governor and Mrs Macquarie's additions to Government House, Parramatta in the mid 1810s. It is possible that these works influenced Rouse to build a bigger house than he first intended, adding larger, longer rooms behind the front range. He chose the site of his new house while building toll houses for Macquarie's upgraded road to the Hawkesbury. Rouse sited the new house prominently, possibly with an eye to its possible use as an inn, on a hilltop adjacent to the toll house (also built by him) on the Parramatta to Windsor Turnpike. He acquired other properties, more fertile than the Rouse Hill farm, but Rouse Hill had the

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 31 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS advantage of strategic siting. While other early colonial homesteads overlooked their crops or pastures, Rouse Hill has always overlooked the busy Windsor Road. It was from here that Rouse and his descendants oversaw their distant pastoral and agricultural interests, rather than the estate itself being the focus of those interests. Rouse was not bred to the land, but was shrewd and capable, careful of money and acquisitive of property. He left, on his death in 1852, extensive holdings throughout the colony. The Rouse Hill estate grew to 1200 acres (486 hectares) by Rouse's death, by purchase of an adjacent grant. Rouse consolidated his land holdings at North Richmond from around 1806 and increased his pastoral holdings in the north west of New South Wales, using his sons to colonise further west while he continued to acquire land in Parramatta and Western Sydney. A number of the property's outbuildings finished construction following the completion of the house, including the laundry wing, cottage, barn and woolshed. The garden layout reflects the construction of the house between 1813 and 1818. Some trees remain from the plantings in the mid 19th century. With the exception of outbuildings, Rouse seems to have made no other alterations to the property's buildings. This was left to later generations. Rouse died in 1852 leaving the property to his son Edwin Rouse. The property went to Edwin's son Edwin Stephen Rouse on his death in1862. A summerhouse, woolshed and a two storey service wing was added in the 1860s, the stables built in 1876 and 1877 and the house redecorated and partly furnished in 1885. The service wing made no direct connection with the house. A verandah, weighted sash windows, a modified front door and sidelights and other late 19th century innovations were also installed. These too have been done in such a way as to preserve the integrity of the house. 1888 Rouse Hill public school opened to the east of Rouse Hill House and farm. Edwin Stephen Rouse's eldest daughter Nina who had left the house in 1895 to marry George Terry returned with her husband to live at Rouse Hill in 1924. This was a result of their bankruptcy. Following the death of Edwin Stephen Rouse in 1931 his estate was administered by Trustees, mainly family members and later a family company, until 1969. In 1932 the studio converted into a breakfast room. Estate subdivision had begun in 1951 and the property had been reduced to 106 acres by 1963. Nina Terry died at Rouse Hill House in 1968 and the following year the remaining 106 acres were subdivided. The homestead block of 29 acres went to her two sons Gerald and Roderick Terry as tenants in common. When a family dispute occurred following the death of Edwin Rouse's grand-daughter Nina Terry in 1968, architect John Fisher (early member of the Institute of Architects, member of the Cumberland County Historic Buildings Committee and National Trust Board member after its reformation in 1960) chaired the Rouse Hill Preservation Committee, which brought together the family and representatives of the National Trust of Australia (NSW). This led to the State Government resuming the property, which later became a property under the care of the Historic Houses Trust of NSW. A further subdivision in 1974 reduced the homestead block to 8.15 hectares. In March 1978 the NSW government purchased the property which also contained 24 outbuildings (and half its contents). It was administered by the Planning and Environment Commission, later the Department of Planning, which commissioned restoration works from the Public Works Department. The Heritage Council's Restoration Steering (HC RS) Committee resolved to have a conservation statement prepared for the buildings and their site. Urgent repair works to the outbuildings were identified and undertaken under the supervision of the Government Architect's Branch, Public Works Department and the main entrance driveway was regraded and regravelled. Urgent repair and stabilisation on the homestead and outbuildings continued and a fire control service was installed in the garden. A gardener was contracted to carry out urgent garden maintenance. The HC RS Committee considered the need for accurate documentation of interior finishes and contents of the buildings and for curatorial and materials conservation work to be carried out. The initial conservation programme was endorsed and circulated to various interested conservation bodies for comment. The Royal Australian Historical Society was requested to undertake an historical research programme on the

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 32 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS property. An archaeologist was contracted to be present during any excavation works associated with the repairs programme. There has been a continuity of family ownership at Rouse Hill until 1978. Particular forces in the family's history and those of wealth in the 19th century, followed by financial hardship, longevity and resistance to change in the 20th century have left the property in a poignantly fragile condition. This fragility is inherent in much of the property's historic fabric and is integral to the archival significance of the place. 1984 the summer house was repaired/reconstructed and the property was transferred to the Historic Houses Trust in 1987. Family association with the property continued through the occupancy of Gerald Terry from 1968, Roderick Terry, 1968-80, and the latter's daughter and son in law, Miriam and Ian Hamilton and the Hamiltons' ownership of a significant portion of the collection. The collection was subsequently transferred to the Hamilton Rouse Hill Trust. Since 1978 descendants have returned many significant family items and the collection now comprises over 20,000 objects as diverse as costume, furniture, tools and automobiles. 1993 - 25 acres (10 hectares) of land left (in HHT management). When the HHT opened Rouse Hill House and Farm to the public in 1999 it was in a limited capacity and a very different context. In 2007, anticipating the extraordinary residential growth in the area, the HHT sought funding of $19m from Treasury to provide new visitor and cultural facilities (interpretation, programs, research and access to the collection) along with commercial activities (cafe, retail, auditorium and flexible public spaces to be used as venues). The project aimed to improve the property's sustainability and allowed it to be opened up to thousands of visitors a year. 2008: HHT got first stage funding for education component of its vision for the site. To protect the heritage precinct the State Government established the Rouse Hill Regional Park, transferred the 1888 Rouse Hill Public School (former) and adjacent lands to the HHT and diverted Windsor Road (to the east away from the house and school). 10/3/2009 Remnant RTA lands were transferred to the HHT (from the Windsor Road bypass which is open further to the east than the old road alignment (in a cutting). The Hills Shire Council approved stage one development application for works. 2009-10: Construction program almost complete on former RTA land and Rouse Hill Public School (former) adjoining re-aligned Windsor Road: School house conserved, repainted in Victorian colour scheme and interpreted as 19th century school; cafe, retail, education centre and outdoor auditorium (for 60); parking; security; flexible public spaces to be used as venues and landscaping works completed. Property's capacity and visitation rate increased, including increasing numbers of local schools (capacity now for 20,000 children a year to visit). Transfer of the remnant RTA lands created a new opportunity for research and interpretation. HHT historians Joy Hughes, Jane Kelso and curator Fergus Clunie began gathering historic maps of the region. Searching for the location of the original Toll House at Rouse Hill, he unearthed new evidence about the line of the old Hawkesbury Road (1794-1813) on which the pursuit and 'battle of Vinegar Hill', an armed conflagration between convicts and troops, took place in 1804. Although the road has long since disappeared, it defined the boundary of the first land grant in the area, the 1000 acre 'Copenhagen' given to Captain William Bligh. It also ran close to the surviving kilometre stretch of the old Windsor Road built by convicts in 1812-13 as the first turnpike in the colony between Sydney and the Hawkesbury. The exact location of the battle of Vinegar Hill has long been debated, but the map evidence and line of the old Hawkesbury Road indicate that it most likely took place between Second Ponds Creek and the crest of Rouse Hill, formerly known as Vinegar Hill. A line of very early trees at the edge of the road is believed to date back to the time of the battle. Rouse Hill House dating from 1813, is remarkable as one of the longest continuously occupied houses in Australia, set in the oldest surviving garden in Australia and with original outbuildings, interiors and collections intact. As the likely site of the battle of Vinegar Hill, it now has a new level of significance, with exciting interpretive possibilities, and this has encouraged HHT to rethink its approach to the property. 2004 Energy Australia National Trust Heritage Award received.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 33 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Direct heritage impacts to the listed item Rouse Hill House would not ensue as a result of development of the study area because the item is outside the study area. However, indirect impact (such as alterations to viewlines and the item's landscape context) would require consideration.

At its greatest extent, the Rouse Hill Estate covered much of the southern part of the study area (see Figure 7). A much larger curtilage than currently exists for the House has been recommended in order to preserve associated views and vistas of heritage significance and the historical landscape context of the item (Figure 2). Neither of these curtilages has been given statutory recognition or protection. A smaller area, to the north of the original estate, referred to as the 'cultural heritage landscape area' has been defined in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centre) 2006, and falls within the study area.

2.3.2 In the Vicinity of the Study Area

2.3.2.1 Box Hill Inn This property is currently identified as Lot 11 in Deposited Plan 1009338, and is outside the study area, on the opposite side of Windsor Road. The following detail is provided in the State Heritage Register Listing for the item:

Statement of The former Box Hill Inn or the Rummery Homestead is considered to be an item of the state's significance environmental heritage because of its: Historical value - it was built in 1825 and as such is a rarity in New South Wales. It is one of the earliest roadside inns and one of the few still remaining on the route between Parramatta and Windsor; Cultural significance - the inn is a reminder of how distance played a significant role in the settlement of the state; Architectural significance - the inn is an example of a vernacular building whose use changed as demand required. Physical Two storey brick inn with a two roomed attic reached by a narrow Georgian stairway in the rear description room. It is said to have been built in 1825. The front veranda has octagonal timber posts with beaded-edge wide timber ceiling linings. There are two front doors, one of six panels with a four-pane fanlight over and the other of eight panels and no fanlight. Windows are 12-paned with solid timber shutters. The front wall is stuccoed and tuck pointed to represent Flemish bond brickwork. Internally there are 6 panel and vertically boarded doors. Architraves have been removed, but one mantelpiece remains on site. Walls and ceilings are of plaster. The ceilings are a lime and mud mortar pressed into laths. There is a cellar under one room at the end and a separate brick kitchen wing that appear to have been built in the late Victorian or Federation periods. A timber-framed gabled roof with detailing typical of the early twentieth century links the two brick structures The gable roof is clad with corrugated steel. The end wall has been demolished and a new footing poured. The rebuilding of this wall was stopped by Baulkham Hills Shire Council who required a development application and concurrence of the NSW Heritage Council (Heritage Council report, 27/6/1989). Neat little early cottage, from c.1830, with the roof line sweeping down to a low profile over the front veranda (Proudfoot, 1987, 124). several fruit trees remain - quince, citrus. A timber- framed shed stands to the rear in poor condition. Three wells lie to the rear and north of the house, two of them are unusually wide. Much of the Georgian character still remains with the Coach House at the rear. Historical Two-storey brick inn with a two-roomed attic reached by a narrow Georgian stairway in the rear notes room. It is said to have been built in 1825 by the Rummery family who were orchardists in Riverstone as the Coach House Inn. It was first licensed as the Box Hill Inn in 1842, and later changed to the Bee Hive Inn, 1848. Licenses were held by pioneers such as Joseph Suffolk, John Foley, Robert Smith and John Barnett.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 34 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Has remained vacant for many years.

The non-Indigenous heritage assessment of the Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Precincts (AECOM 2011: 34-35) contained the following assessment of significance for the Box Hill Inn:

Criterion a – historical The Box Hill Inn is of historical significance to the State as it was built in 1841 and is one of the earliest recorded roadside inns, and is one of only a few surviving on the route between Parramatta and Windsor. The Inn is culturally significant as it serves as a reminder of how distance played a significant role in the settlement of the state. Criterion b – associative The Box Hill Inn is of local significance for its association with the Rumery family, who owned the property and other extensive land holdings in the Box Hill and Nelson areas between the 1850s and the 1920s. They developed an orchard across a large portion of the Box Hill area. Criterion c – aesthetic The Box Hill Inn is architecturally significant to the State as it is an example of a vernacular building whose use changed and adapted as circumstances and demand required. Its location on a slight incline and on a curve in Windsor Road makes it a prominent landmark. Criterion d – social The Box Hill Inn holds local social significance as it is held in high regard by the local community and its current state of disrepair is of concern to them. Criterion e – technical The expected archaeological deposits associated with the Box Hill Inn are of State significance for their potential to provide information regarding the operation of an early inn and the subsequent occupation by a single family for approximately 70 years. Criterion f – rarity The Box Hill Inn is of State significance as a rare, intact surviving example of an early roadside inn. Criterion g – representative The Box Hill Inn is of State significance as a representative example of an early roadside inn. It retains the form and layout of the original Inn and can easily be read as such. Statement of Significance The Box Hill Inn is of State significance for is historical, aesthetic, technical, rarity and representative values. The Inn is one of only a few surviving on the route between Parramatta and Windsor and serves as a reminder of how distance played a significant role in the settlement of the State. Architecturally it is significant as a vernacular building and a prominent landmark along Windsor Road. The archaeological deposits associated with the Inn have the potential to provide information regarding the operation of an early inn and the subsequent occupation by a single family for approximately 70 years. The Box Hill Inn is of State significance as a rare, intact surviving example of an early roadside inn and is also representative of the same. At a local level the Inn is significant for is social values - it is held in high regard by the local community and its current state of disrepair is of concern to them. The Box Hill Inn is also of local significance for its association with the Rumery family, who owned the property and other extensive land holdings in the Box Hill and Nelson areas between the 1850s and the 1920s. They developed an orchard across a large portion of the Box Hill area.

No recommendations were made that would affect development in the present study area (AECOM 2011: 34-35).

The landscape and visual analysis of the Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Precincts (Conybeare Morrison 2011: 7) discussed the Box Hill Inn as follows:

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 35 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Box Hill Inn (Rummery Homestead), 13 Windsor Road, Box Hill is a small Georgian Inn with a gable roof and several out-buildings. It is sited close to Windsor Road. Despite its small size, it is highly visible along Windsor Road due to the cleared nature of its environment and its presence on a curve in the road. The land falls to the northeast, and the rear of the Homestead enjoys views over the valley to the East. The clear views to it from Windsor Road are part of its heritage significance.

The 'potential visual impact analysis' included identification of 'views at Windsor Road / Box Hill Inn / Low Lying Area', of moderate sensitivity (Conybeare Morrison 2011: 16). This consists of a circle, approximately 500m in diameter, centred on the Box Hill Inn. It extends across Windsor Road into the present study area, and is named View 6 in the report. The following analysis and recommendations were made:

View 6 - Box Hill Inn Open Pastures Sub-Precinct Descriptions of views View 6 is located adjacent Windsor Road in the western portion of the site on an elevation of around RL31m. Immediate views to the northwest include the First Ponds Creek and Killarney Chain of Ponds with scattered trees within the flood plain. Distant views of the Blue Mountains are possible through the trees. Views to the North are dominated by single and two storey rural residential dwellings and single storey light industrial sheds on the Major Ridgeline – North. The riparian vegetation of the northern tributary is visually dominant in the middle views with a ground cover of grasses in the foreground. Land to the northeast is screened by the dense vegetation of the Killarney Chain of Ponds. Foreground views to the East include pastoral land with the Box Hill House in the middle views visible above the canopy of the riparian vegetation. To the West and southeast, immediate views of the Windsor Road corridor are possible, framed by the mature tree canopy extending along Windsor Road. Visual sensitivity Visual sensitivity is assessed as Medium, given the location in proximity to Box Inn. It is expected that over time development of this area is likely. This location is screened by Killarney Chain of Ponds vegetation. This area could potentially be redeveloped for light industrial purposes. Visual effect Visual effect is assessed as Medium due to the location, topography and distance from Box Hill House. Existing riparian vegetation provides a good visual barrier to this potential development area. Potential visual impact The overall potential impact of this viewpoint is assessed as Medium. Landscape screening is recommended around all development. Development potential of area: View 6 area is suitable for controlled development. Visual mitigation: Adequate landscape buffers and controls on building height, colour, materials and finishes would be required to enhance rural characters and provide a buffer to view from Box Hill House. All future development should comply with the objectives in Chapter 7.

The identification of View 6 and assessment of its sensitivity, as outlined above, has been informed to some extent by the presence of Box Hill Inn. However, the identification of the extent and significance of the view does not appear to be based on heritage requirements.

Taking into consideration the location and nature of the listed item, Box Hill Inn, no direct heritage impact is likely to ensue from development of the study area. The structure is located on the opposite side of Windsor Road, and the associated property does not extend across the road into the present study area. A moderately sensitive view has been identified surrounding the item, but this does not appear to be based on a consideration of the heritage significance of the item. Heritage assessments

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 36 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS of the setting of the item have instead addressed its relation to Windsor Road, and viewlines to and from the item along the road.

However, it should be noted that the Rummery family (owners of the Box Hill Inn) were also connected with properties within the study area (see Section 2.3.1.1). A physical connection, in the form of a track between the two, is known to have existed (see Figure 24). The visual connections between these properties, and across Windsor Road, may therefore be a consideration.

2.3.2.2 Former Rouse Hill Public School This property is currently identified as Lots 18-20 in DP 1118307, and is outside the study area. It is located on the north side of Annangrove Road, and is bisected by a realigned section of Windsor Road. The School is thought to have been opened in 1888 ('Rouse Hill House', SHR listing). Given the nature and location of this item, no direct impact is likely to result from development within the study area.

2.3.2.3 Windsor Road and Associated Items The majority of the identified heritage items relate to Windsor Road, and consist of:

 Alignment stones.

 First Ponds Creek alignment and crossing.

 Box Hill vergescape and trees.

 Post and wire fence, Riverstone.

 Rouse Hill road cutting. Alignment stones

Regarding the alignment stones, the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road CMP notes the following:

The use of stone markers to fix the extent and alignment of a road is a practice that is known to exist in New South Wales only on the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road. These road marker stones therefore possess great historic and technical interest and are the most important physical evidence we have of the line of these early roads. (CLSP 2005: 15).

The alignment stones were used to mark the carriageway (42 feet wide) within the road reserve (66 feet wide). They were placed in pairs at points where the road changed direction (CLSP 2005: 15). Their installation date is not known, but it is thought that the stones were placed in the period 1839- 1847 (CLSP 2005: 16).

The CMP was prepared during a program of major upgrading of Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road by the RTA (now RMS) (CLSP 2005: 61). It was recommended that the alignment stones be retained in situ where possible; lowered and reburied at the same co-ordinates if it was not possible to avoid excavation in the location; or removed to a nearby location if reburial was not possible (CLSP 2005: 68). No record of these works has been identified, however it is assumed that all identified alignment stones in close proximity to the study area were affected by the road upgrade. As the identified locations are within the road corridor, they would not be directly impacted by future development within the study area.

First Ponds Creek alignment and crossing

The Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road CMP notes that a section of the old alignment of Windsor Road may survive to the north of the First Ponds Creek crossing (CLSP 2005: 26), that is, to the north of the study area. The realignment of the road in this location involved the construction of a bridge in

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 37 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS a new location in c.1960 (CLSP 2005: 26). The 2003 survey resulted in the identification of the remains of a former bridge over First Ponds Creek, consisting of seven wooden piles, timber cross beams and two timber abutments (Therin Archaeological Consulting, Nov 2003). An assessment of the remains was undertaken the following year (Heritage Concepts, Aug 2004). The construction date of the bridge remains was not established, beyond an assessment that they were constructed prior to c.1960. The assessment concluded that the remains had no heritage significance, although the crossing location was historically significant as a heritage place.

Box Hill Vergescape and trees

The 'Box Hill Vergescape Precinct' is a stretch of Windsor Road immediately to the east of the former Box Hill Inn, identified in the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road CMP (CLSP 2005: 26). It is described as follows:

Box Hill Vergescape Precinct

Section of Windsor Road retaining the earlier route topography, mature native trees, and significant views. Includes Trees, Views to and From Box Hill House and Alignment Stones 2320, 2321, 2322.

Trees

Mature Eucalyptus trees on either side of Windsor Road. Provide enclosure and contrast with open views each side. Trees on south side of road will be removed in 2005 as part of road works.

This precinct and its individual components are unlikely to be directly or indirectly affected by any future development within the study area. The alignment stones are within the road corridor, as noted above; the mature Eucalypts on the south side of the road have been removed, and the associated viewlines are from the road to the north, away from the study area.

Post and wire fence, Riverstone

This item was identified in the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road CMP. It is located on the south- west side of Windsor Road, between Terry and Box Roads (CLSP 2005: 28). It is described as follows:

Riverstone Post & Wire Fencescape Precinct Surviving hardwood post and wire fence following the road reserve on the south side of Windsor Road. Remnants of earlier methods land tenure markings along the Windsor Road route. Includes Post & Wire Fence and Alignment Stones 2296, 2297, 2286.

Post & Wire Fence, Riverstone

Follows road reserve on south west side of Windsor Road between Box Road and Terry Road. Hardwood posts and wire remain. Although not of a great age, this fence is one of the few traditional examples to remain along the Windsor Road.

This precinct and its individual components are unlikely to be affected by any future development within the study area. The alignment stones are within the road corridor, as noted above; and the fence has been removed.

Rouse Hill road cutting

The cutting along Windsor Road is located between Box and Annangrove Roads. As the alignment was altered in this location as part of the c.2006 road works, the cutting is now located to the west of Windsor Road. It is described in the CMP (CLSP 2005: 29) as follows:

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 38 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Rouse Hill Road Cutting Precinct

Section of Windsor Road subject to reconstruction and interpretation after it is diverged from the proposed Windsor Road upgrade. Includes Rouse Hill Road Cutting and Alignment Stones 2287, 2288, 28.

Rouse Hill Road Cutting

Carried out as part of road improvements c. 1931.

This item is unlikely to be affected by any future development within the study area. The alignment stones are within the road corridor, as noted above; and the road cutting is to the south of the study area, although the former alignment does extend north into the study area.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 39 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Table 7 Previously identified heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area.

Register / Report Items within the study area Items in the vicinity of the study area State Heritage Register Box Hill Inn, Windsor Road, Box Hill (Lot 11 DP 1009338). SHR No.27. The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 I40 - Former Box Hill Inn, 751 Windsor Road, Box Hill, Lot 11 DP 1009338, State significance Sydney Regional Environmental Plan Rumery Homestead' (former inn), Lots 4 and 5 DP 539291, No. 13 Windsor No.19 Rouse Hill Development Area Road, Box Hill State Environmental Planning Policy Box Hill Inn, 751 Windsor Road, Box Hill, State significance (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 State Heritage Inventory Box Hill Inn (former), Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Register of the National Trust of Australia Box Hill Inn (NSW) Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 3025: commercial / building Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 3025: Box Hill Inn / Rumery Homestead State Heritage Register Rouse Hill House and Farm, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill. SHR No.2. Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988 House and other Buildings - Rouse Hill - Lot 1 DP 815213, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Draft Blacktown Local Environmental Plan I98 - Rouse Hill House - 980 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill - Lot 1 DP 815213 - 2013 State significance Sydney Regional Environmental Plan Rouse Hill House and outbuildings, Lot 10 DP 567606, Windsor Road, No.19 Rouse Hill Development Area Rouse Hill Register of the National Estate Rouse Hill House Garden, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Register of the National Estate Rouse Hill House including Stables and Outbuildings, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill State Heritage Inventory Rouse Hill House, 980 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill Register of the National Trust of Australia Rouse Hill House including stables, other buildings and curtilage. S9564. (NSW) Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 25: house Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 25: Rouse Hill House: 980 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 40 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Views to and from Rouse Hill House State Environmental Planning Policy Rouse Hill cultural heritage landscape area (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 Conybear Morrison & Partners 2003 Rouse Hill House curtilage Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988 House - Nu Welwyn - Part of Lot 5 DP 229296, Clarke Street, Riverstone Draft Blacktown Local Environmental Plan I61 - House - Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, 2013 Riverstone - Part of Lot 5 DP 229296 - Local significance State Heritage Inventory Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street, Riverstone Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 3028: school Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 3028: Former Rouse Hill Public School Roads and Maritime Services S170 Item 4301011 Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road Heritage Precincts: Heritage and Conservation Register Precinct WR7: First Ponds Creek Alignment; Precinct WR8 Box Hill Vergescape; WR10 Rouse Hill Road Cutting The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 I28 - Windsor Road from Baulkham Hills to Box Hill, local significance

State Heritage Inventory Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road Heritage Precincts Windsor Road from Boundary Road to Garfield Road East. High State Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 significance. Windsor Road from Garfield Road East to Annangrove Road. High State Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 significance Therin Archaeological Consulting Nov 2003 First Ponds Creek bridge Heritage Concepts Aug 2004 First Ponds Creek bridge Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 27: bridge: nil significance Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 27: bridge crossing: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 First Ponds Creek alignment precinct Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 First Ponds Creek old road alignment, Riverstone Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 27: site of bridge Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2320: alignment stone: high State significance

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 41 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2320: alignment stone: E303881 N6273307 Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2321: alignment stone: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2321: alignment stone: E303968 N6273273 Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Box Hill vergescape precinct Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 trees Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2322: alignment stone: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2322: alignment stone: E304222 N6273194 Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2296: alignment stone: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2296: alignment stone: E304954 N6272867 Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2297: alignment stone: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2297: alignment stone: E305057 N6272785 Heritage Concepts Dec 2004 2286: alignment stone: high State significance Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 2286: alignment stone: E305761 N6272001 Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Riverstone post & wire fencescape precinct Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Post & wire fence, Riverstone Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Rouse Hill cutting precinct Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners 2005 Rouse Hill road cutting

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 42 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 9 Previously identified heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 43 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

3 HISTORY

3.1 General

The first European incursion into the Vineyard and Riverstone East precincts was an expedition led by Governor Arthur Phillip to find out whether the Hawkesbury River linked with the Nepean River. His party consisted of Lieutenant Tench, Lieutenant Dawes, Surgeon White, Mr. Collins, a servant, three convicts, eight Marine privates, two sergeants, one captain, and two Aboriginal guides: Colbee and Boladeree. On their return, on 16 April 1791, the party traversed the study area noting the recently burnt landscape and describing the land, in Phillip’s words, as ‘poor soil but finely formed and covered with the stately white gum tree’ (Phillip, 16 April 1791).

During the course of 1794 seventy-two families, almost all headed by an ex-convict, took up residence on the Hawkesbury River, South Creek and McKenzies Creek (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2009: 13). These early settlers cleared the land of trees and scrub and sowed crops of wheat and maize in the fertile river soils. In some seasons they grew ‘from fifteen to twenty thousand bushels of wheat’ (Hunter 1799: 354-355). But many of these settlers had built on flood plains and, despite warnings by local Aboriginal people, were unprepared for the devastating flood that engulfed the early settlement in 1799. John Hunter described the event in vivid detail in a letter to the Duke of Portland:

The river swell’d to more than fifty feet perpendicular height above its common level, and the torrent was so powerful it carried all before it. Many of the people were taken from the ridges of their houses by a few boats they had amongst them just in time to save their lives, for most of the dwellings were cover’d, and the whole country here appear’d like an immense ocean. Many hogs, other live stock, poultry, with much of the produce of the last unfortunate harvest, and the domestic effects of the people, were hurried away before the torrent. Fortunately, we lost but one man (Hunter 1799: 354- 355).

The history of the Vineyard and Riverstone East precincts is marked by such floods. In 1867 the Hawkesbury rose to a height of 19.2 metres, the greatest flood on record. And in 1961, the worst flood of the twentieth century surged into residences and overflowed onto the railway line, forcing sixty houses to be evacuated (Seale 2009).

The construction in 1794 of Hawkesbury Road, later renamed Windsor Road, traversed the study area and established an important route of trade and communication between the farms on the Hawkesbury River and the settlement at Parramatta (Casey & Lowe Associates Sept 1993: 4). The road was altered and improved over time, usually in a piecemeal fashion. In 1797, orders were made for the widening of the road to twenty feet, although it is not clear whether this was consistently carried out, as it was made the responsibility of local landholders. After the dramatic uprising at Castle Hill prison in 1804 – later known as ‘The Battle of Vinegar Hill’ – convicts trying to make their escape to the Hawkesbury would have crossed the lands of the Riverstone district on or near Hawkesbury road (Barry et al. 1980). The road was expanded and improved from 1810-1813 with the construction of a new alignment between Parramatta and Kellyville and seventy new bridges, the installation of alignment stones and the widening of the road to thirty-two feet (CLSP Aug 2005: 6). These developments underline the significance of this route to the new colony.

Despite early success growing wheat and maize, the colony was chronically short of livestock. Much of the livestock that arrived with the settlers in 1788 had either died or disappeared, forcing the administration to import cattle and sheep from India and South Africa. In 1800 a Government Stock Yard was established on the western side of the Hawkesbury road, to the north of Meurants Lane (Casey & Lowe Associates Sept 1993: 4). But small farmers found it difficult to both afford the new livestock and find the land on which to run them. This led Governor King in 1802 to initiate a policy of

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 44 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS loaning government cattle, sheep and pigs to small settlers to build up their own herds and flocks (DECC 2009: 13). In 1804 King also laid aside substantial areas of Crown land for use as pasturage, creating the Nelson Common (later known as Pitt Town Common, Richmond Common and, briefly, as Mulgrave Place Common) (ENSR 2008: 10).

The first land grants were made along the Hawkesbury Road around this time and, in 1805, John Hillas, a free settler, opened the first inn on the road, the Stanhope Arms (Casey & Lowe Associates Sept 1993: 4). Coach services also commenced along the road in 1805, mostly transporting goods, and by 1824 a regular passenger service between Parramatta and Windsor had been established (CLSP Aug 2005: 6). In 1833, the road was proclaimed a Main Road and as such would be managed at public expense (CLSP Aug 2005: 6). It was maintained through the 1830s and 1840s by a group of convicts – Number 12 Road Gang – acting under Governor Darling’s instructions. These convicts stopped the road from falling into disrepair, but their work was marked by complaints about shortages of labour and the ineptitude of the overseer (CLSP Aug 2005: 7).

The colonial administrators encouraged occupation of the land along the Hawkesbury Road, and from 1810 large plots of land were granted to a series of prominent individuals. In May 1810, for example, Governor Macquarie granted Maurice Charles O’Connell 2,500 acres of the land that is now Riverstone to mark his marriage to Mary Putland, widowed daughter of deposed Governor Bligh (ADB 1967). The grant was all the land now bounded by the Windsor Road, Bandon Road Vineyard, Eastern Creek and Kensington Park Road Schofields. O’Connell named the land ‘Riverston Farm’ after his birthplace in Ireland and built a homestead close to the main road. Whilst the O’Connells did not live at ‘Riverston’, the farm was put to immediate use. Governor Macquarie visited the farm on 8th December, noting its ‘dairy and stock yards’, but it appears the O’Connell’s were absent as he only stayed ‘for about a quarter of an hour’ (Macquarie 1810).

In 1813 Walter Lang was granted 700 acres on South Creek, which he named ‘Clydesdale’ (now in the Berkshire Park end of Marsden Park). Two years later, in 1815, Reverend Samuel Marsden was granted 1,000 acres (now Marsden Park) on which he ran sheep (ERM 2012). Other early land grants in the area included 450 acres for Richard Rouse at Vinegar Hill in 1816, John Palmer’s 1818 grant of 1,500 acres in the area later known as Rouse Hill, and James Ruse’s 1819 grant of 100 acres on Eastern Creek. John Schofield arrived in Sydney as a convict in 1821. Four years later he was granted a ticket of leave and by 1845 he had accumulated enough wealth to purchase a 600-acre property known as Argown, which gives present day Schofields its name. It appears that many of these early landholders did not live on their estates and instead employed managers to run cattle, sheep and horses on their land (ENSR 2008: 11-12). Schofield was a notable exception.

In the 1850s a railway was proposed to link the Hawkesbury River settlements with Parramatta and Sydney. A route from Blacktown to Richmond was surveyed in 1862 and construction continued throughout 1963-64. The line opened on 1 December 1864. (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 13) The advent of the railway was a critical point in the history of Riverstone and Vineyard. It enabled a burst of activity in the area including the subdivision of farms, the development of industry and the emergence of the villages of Schofields and Riverstone, each centred on the new railway line. The railway timetable also officially gave ‘Riverston’ the name ‘Riverstone’. (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 14).

The Riverstone station was a timber platform with a brick building that housed the waiting room, ticket office and residence for the stationmaster. It quickly became a hub of local activity and a vital commercial link with Sydney and Parramatta. The social and economic impact of the railway was immense (Urbis Nov 2008: 24). New schools opened on Old Pitt Town Road in 1866, in Vineyard in 1872 and in Rouse Hill in 1875. A Post Office was established at Riverstone Railway Station in 1877, joined soon after by a Telegraph Station and, in 1914, a telephone exchange (Lewis 2009). The Riverstone community expanded with the opening of Christ Church Rouse Hill in 1863, St. John’s Catholic Church in 1882, and St. Andrew’s Church of England, ‘The Vineyard’, in 1884 (AHMS 2006).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 45 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

The cemeteries attached to these churches contain the graves of many of the pioneers of the area (Phillis and Phillis 1998).

The railway also attracted entrepreneurs such as Benjamin Richards, a grazier and butcher from Richmond who established the Riverstone Meatworks in 1878 (Phillis 2004). Richards recognised Riverstone as an ideal location between country and city, with plentiful creek water and, importantly, a rail link to Sydney and Parramatta. In 1878 he purchased the first land of what was to become a 1092ha site, erected a beef slaughterhouse and began his operation with his two sons, James and Robert, and four other butchers. The next year, in 1879, he opened a mutton house, employed thirty butchers and arranged for a siding at the railway station known as Richards Siding to service his abattoirs. The killing took place at night, due to the lack of refrigeration facilities. The butchered carcasses were sent by rail to freezing works in Sydney for export to England (Kass 2005: 54). In 1893 the local population of Riverstone was 527 with 74 houses in the Township, but an average of 2,000 sheep and 100 bullocks were being processed at the meatworks daily (Hazard 2010).

Richards died in 1898, but the Riverstone Meatworks stayed in his family until 1919 when it was sold to the Angliss Group. William Angliss expanded the business, making the meatworks the chief employer in the Riverstone District. It would remain so up until it closed in 1994 (Phillis 2004). In 1934 the Vestey group took over the works and during World War II the plant produced thousands of tonnes of frozen and canned meats and dehydrated eggs for the use of servicemen overseas. The supply was so important that key staff were banned from enlisting.

The story of the meatworks reflects the growth and transformation of the Riverstone East and Vineyard precincts. The plant created a local focus of employment, allowing urban subdivisions in the Riverstone area to be used for housing and for small business (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 15). But it was not the only industry to benefit from the railway. Timber milling was an important early industry and sawmills were established by Andrew McCulloch and John Schofield at Riverstone and Schofields stations (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 15; GML 2011: 11).

Orchards lined either side of the railway, but they appear not to have been as big a part of the economy as in Kellyville or Seven Hills. There were five orchardists in the district c.1885 and eleven by 1900 (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 16). Vineyards were also prevalent in the region, giving Vineyard its name. O’Connell had a vineyard on his estate at least until the 1870s and there was another large vineyard on Garfield Road West in the 1880s. But these and the grape crops at The Vineyards suffered from a plague of phylloxera insects that swept through the region in 1892. Overall, farming in the study area seems to be low-scale until the 1900s, when there was a significant increase in market gardening and poultry farming. In 1900 there was only one poultry farmer in the district and a handful of market gardeners; by 1930 there were twenty-six market gardeners at Riverstone and twenty-nine poultry farms (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 16). Post-World War II migration spurred on a further intensification in both these industries. The changing agricultural practices are reflected in the produce stores that emerged in Riverstone. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, produce was sold at a range of general stores throughout the region. But from 1914, specialised stores emerged to cater for a wide variety of farm and garden needs, selling tools, stock feeds, poultry feed, seeds, fertilisers, etc (Neal 2006).

Riverstone’s population in 1911 was 981. World War I had a profound impact on such a small community. As Shirley Seale lamented (2014), ‘One in two families at that time had someone who went to war.’ Twenty-two men from the area died in World War I and their names are etched in a memorial at Riverstone Station. But the community’s involvement in the overseas conflict is reflected in their broader contribution. ‘You wouldn't call Riverstone a rich community,’ reflected local historian Rosemary Phillis, ‘but it did a lot of fund-raising during the war and when soldiers came home … It showed how much a little community could give’ (Stevens 2014).

The increasing use of motor cars after the war necessitated further works to the Old Windsor Road. A bitumen coating was laid down in 1925-6 and renewed in 1928-9 (CLSP Aug 2005: 7). But residents

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 46 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS remained unhappy with the lack of services in the area, levelling their dissatisfaction at Windsor Council and its ability to provide the district with electricity and water. In 1928, the community voted to come under the administration of Blacktown Shire (Sharpe 2000: 92). Riverstone was connected to the Metropolitan Water Supply in 1933 and electrical services in 1934. The community celebrated with the ‘Back to Riverstone’ carnival. The residents of Riverstone and Vineyard pulled through the grim years of the Depression comparatively smoothly due to the diversity of industries in the district and generous owners of surrounding orchards and farms (Sharpe 2000: 92). In 1933 the population in Riverstone was 1,319, which was a slow and steady growth of approximately 300 people in 20 years. (Blacktown City Council 2008)

The post-war period saw a boom of new homes in the precinct and a range of new accents sounding in the streets (Sharpe 2000: 92; Gillespie & Gillespie 2006). The County of Cumberland Plan was adopted in 1947-48 in an attempt to create a ‘green belt’ around Sydney (Barry et al. 1980: 15). The new guidelines restricted building on sites of less than five acres, helping the area to retain its rural character and encouraging the establishment of small intensive farms. Many of the new migrants channelled their energy and labour into market gardens and poultry farms. Some residents became involved in the Korean War.

Riverstone remained a semi-rural community in the 1960s and bread was still delivered by horse and cart. The 1970s brought many changes. Blacktown City Council opened the Riverstone Olympic Swimming Pool in 1976 and Riverstone Marketown and the Riverstone Branch Library in 1978. In May 1975 the Richmond railway line was electrified from Blacktown to Riverstone. This made Riverstone a changing point where the passengers got off electric ‘red rattlers’ and onto two-car diesel trains. Electrification was completed in 1991.

Six men died in a fire at the meatworks while trying to rescue animals trapped inside in 1970 (Phillis 2004). All were posthumously awarded medals for courage by the RSPCA; the tragedy is still mourned in the local community. Three years later, in 1973, a new meatworks complex was constructed, making Riverstone Meatworks one of the most modern and technologically advanced meat processing plants of the day. By 1978 it employed 2,000 people, but this success would not last. The United Kingdom’s decision to join the European Community had a profound impact locally. (ENSR AECOM Oct 2008: 15) The market was lost and the plant faltered, closing temporarily in the mid-1980s and, under the ownership of Smorgon Consolidated Industries, closing permanently in 1994.

In the census of 1996 Riverstone’s population had grown to 5,497; Vineyard’s population was 288. But the area has not lost its rural roots. Even today, the annual Riverstone Festival celebrates the district as the ‘best little country town in Sydney’ (Stevens 2014b). The region’s rich vein of local culture is captured in these community events. It is also historicised in the pages of the Riverstone and District Historical Society, with residents recording episodes from the district’s past, from memories of tennis games, golf clubs, bushfires and poultry farms to famous Christmas pudding recipes and ‘The Schofields Santa Tradition’.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 47 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

3.2 Riverstone East Precinct

The Riverstone East Precinct includes part of Portion 95 of the Parish of St Matthew, granted to Maurice Charles O’Connell. To the south, in the Parish of Gidley, it includes parts or all of Portions1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 (see Table 8 and Figure 10).

Table 8 Detail of the portions comprising the study area.

Portion Grant Area Date Parish of St Matthew

95 Maurice Charles O'Connell 2500 1810

Parish of Gidley

1 Maurice Charles O'Connell 1000 22.3.1814

2 John Martin 530

5 Richard Rouse 150 1818

6 Richard Rouse 450 1816

8 Joseph Bigg 200 10.6.1815

9 John Faultless 600 1818

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 48 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 10 The study area, outlined in red, with the initial grants shaded.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 49 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

3.2.1 Portion 95 (St Matthew) & Portion 1 (Gidley) - O'Connell Two parts of the study area are within grants made to Maurice Charles O'Connell. The part to the north of Garfield Road East is within Portion 95 of the Parish of St Matthew, which was granted to O'Connell in 1810. The strip of land on either side of Clarke Street, between Garfield Road East and Guntawong Road, is within Portion 1 of the Parish of Gidley, which was granted to O'Connell in 1814.

O'Connell (1768-1848) arrived in the colony in 1809 as a member of the 1st battalion of the 73rd Regiment, accompanying the new Governor, Lachlan Macquarie ('O'Connell' 1967). O'Connell held various official positions, until he left the colony in 1814, not returning until 1838. On his return he was appointed to the Executive and Legislative Councils.

In 1810, O'Connell married Mary, a daughter of the former Governor William Bligh. Portion 95, consisting of 2500 acres, was granted by Macquarie to O'Connell on the day before the marriage, and was named Riverston after O'Connell's homeland in Ireland (GML Jan 2011: 7). Portion 1 to the south was granted to O'Connell in 1814; this consisted of 1000 acres and was known as Mount Macquarie. The 1813 plan shows O'Connell's 2500 acres, between Eastern Creek and the Old Hawkesbury Road (Figure 11).

It does not appear that the O'Connells ever lived on the Riverstone / Mount Macquarie properties, however there was some development on the estate, as outlined in lease advertisements:

To Let, on Lease for three Years, and possession given the 1st May next, the Estate of Riverston, consisting of 4000 Acres of Land, commonly known by the Name of the Race Course Farm, 4 Miles from Windsor. These lands are well adapted for the grazing of sheep or horned cattle, being nearly fenced round, and abundantly supplied with excellent water. There is a shingled cottage and out- offices on the farm, with a good garden, and 10 acres of cleared land.

(The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 2 April 1829, p.3).

To let on lease for three or five years

The Estates of Riverston and Mount Macquarie, the property of Gen. O'Connell. These grounds are well adapted for the depasturing of horned cattle, sheep, or breeding mares, being constantly supplied with good water in the driest of seasons; they join and consist of 4,000 Acres of very fine grass land, and is situated in the immediate neighbourhood of the town of Windsor; there is a brick Cottage and out-offices on the Riverston Farm, and can be made a comfortable residence for a small family, at a moderate expense; the tenant will be placed in immediate possession and commence rent on the 1st January, 1833. - Terms will be made known on application at Mount Druitt.

(The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 30 October 1832, p.4).

The 1842 plan of the locality shows an area of cleared ground and some cultivation in the north- western part of Portion 95, and another cleared area with a group of structures closer to Windsor Road (Figure 13). The remainder of the property appears not to have been cleared, although there are tracks running through it. Both of the cleared areas fall outside the study area.

Following O'Connell's death in 1848, the Riverstone and Mount Macquarie Estates were bought by Andrew Hardie McCulloch in 1855 (GML Jan 2011: 9). McCulloch was a solicitor and pastoralist. He practised in Sydney from 1864 until 1904. He was the Member for Central Cumberland in the Legislative Assembly from 1877 to 1888. ('Mr Andrew Hardie McCulloch'). Again, McCulloch does not appear to have lived on the estate. The primary application, drawn up in 1864, indicates that parts of the property were leased, at that time to Sheffel, Mangold and McKenzie (LPI PA 515).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 50 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Subdivision plans for various parts of the estate were drawn up in 1859 and 1864, although it appears that few lots sold. The second of these plans indicated that development of the estate remained much the same as it had been in 1842; the Riverstone (later Grantham) homestead.

The 1859 plan shows that the study area includes parts of Sections C and F of the subdivision of Portion 95 (Figure 14). Section C, bounded by Garfield Road East, Junction Road and Windsor Road, has the annotation 'Rummery' on this plan. The 1864 subdivision plan also shows that this part of the property had been sold to Rummery, while the land to the west of Junction Road had been subdivided into lots (Figure 15). The owner of Section C, consisting of 179 acres, 1 rood, 10 perches, was apparently William Rummery (SMH, 17 Sept 1864, p. 2). The Rummery, or Rumery, family is of importance in the history of the area, as indicated in the discussion of the Box Hill Inn (Section 2.3.2.1) and Nu Welwyn (Section 2.3.1.1).

In 1877, the private Riverstone township subdivision was made, adjacent to the train station. Further subdivisions were offered for sale in the 1880s. A plan for the subdivision of Portion 1 was drawn up in 1881, including that part of the study area along either side of Clarke Street (Figure 18). It was at this time that John Rumery bought all 15 of the lots along the eastern side of Clarke Street (see Section 2.3.1.1). These lots remained in the ownership of the Rumery family through to the mid- 1960s and were used by them as one large property. A further subdivision plan, from 1884, again shows the lots created within Portion 95, to the west of Junction Road (Figure 19).

The 1885 plan of Windsor Road shows that strip of the study area along the western side of the road (Figure 23). The area to the north of Garfield Road East is in the ownership of Richard Rummery Senior, and has been divided into paddocks, described as, from north to south; cleared paddocks, cultivation, bush paddock, cultivation and bush paddock. The fence along the boundary with the road is described as 'old split three rail'.

The 1925 plan indicates that development within Portions 1 and 95 and across the study area generally, remained extremely sparse well into the twentieth century (Figure 24). One structure was shown on the Rummery property, to the north of Garfield Road East. One structure was shown in the location of Nu Welwyn, on the eastern side of Clarke Street, and two structures on the western side of Clarke Street. A fifth structure was shown to the south of Garfield Road East, but this is likely to be within Portion 2 (see Section 3.2.2).

The 1947 aerial photograph indicates a similar low level of development through to the mid-twentieth century (Figure 25). The Rummery property had been almost entirely cleared of vegetation, and part appeared to be in cultivation. There were two structures, or groups of structures, set back from Windsor Road. These were not shown in the 1925 plan, and are therefore likely to have been constructed in the intervening period. On the other hand, the structure shown in the central part of this property in the 1925 plan was not evident in the 1947 photograph, although it may simply be that the photograph is not clear enough to make out the building. The area to the west of Junction Road had also been largely cleared of vegetation, with one section in cultivation, and a possible structure having been built in an area set back from Garfield Road East. Development on Portion 1 appeared to be comparable to that shown in 1925, with the Nu Welwyn group on the eastern side of Clarke Street, and two or three groups on the western side of the street.

A plan from c.1951 shows that the Rummery property had been divided into five lots, although these are shown marked on the plan by broken lines, so are likely to have been indicative only at this stage (Figure 26). A second plan from 1951 shows the three lots on the north-west corner of Garfield Road East and Junction Road in the possession of Nora Bridget Ryan and Mary Kathleen Ryan as tenants in common (Figure 27). By 1955, the Rummery property, or at least the western part of it, was in the ownership of Percy W Andrews (Figure 28). On the western side of Junction Road, the three northern lots that fall within the study area (Lots 13-15) were in the ownership of Thomas Boyd and George King (Lots 13-14) and William Turner (Lot 15).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 51 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

The 1956 aerial photograph shows two groups of structures on the Rummery property, both fronting Windsor Road. These are the early-twentieth century buildings also shown in the 1947 aerial (Figure 29). The area under cultivation appears to have been much smaller, and it is likely that much of this property was used for pasture at this time. On the lots to the west of Junction Road there were two groups of buildings; one fronting Garfield Road East, and one Junction Road. On Portion 1, the Nu Welwyn group was still the only development shown on the eastern side of Clarke Street. The structure that had previously stood opposite Nu Welwyn (in the 1925 and 1947 images) was no longer present, but there were now five groups of structures further south, on the western side of Clarke Street.

The 1958 plans drawn up for the proposed widening of Windsor Road showed one structure on the Rummery property along the Windsor Road boundary, set back from the strip to be acquired for the road widening. This was a fibro and iron dwelling, with a surrounding yard fenced with palings and chain wire (Figure 31 and Figure 32). This is likely to be the northern of the two groups of structures shown in the 1947 and 1956 images. The plans also show the bridge carrying Windsor Road across First Ponds Creek, and a 'very old wire fence' along Windsor Road.

The 1965 aerial photograph showed a number of additional groups of structures on the Rummery property, fronting both Windsor Road and Garfield Road East (Figure 29). The patterning evident indicates that the property had been subdivided into large rural/residential lots. On the lots to the west of Junction Road, only the southern one of the two groups of structures remained. Within Portion 1, the Nu Welwyn group remained, but that part of the property to the south of Riverstone Road had been subdivided into relatively small lots and developed, with houses and market gardens. However, development on the western side of Clarke Street remained sparse at this time.

In 1968, a plan was drawn up for the creation of that section of Junction Road to the south of Crown Street (Figure 37). No development is shown within this part of Portion 95, although only a very small area is shown. The 1969 plan of the proposed widening of Garfield Road East does not show any development along the southern boundary of Portion 95 or the northern boundary of Portion 1, apart from a pumping station and concrete tank to the north-east of the intersection of Garfield Road East and Edmund Street (Figure 38). The bridge carrying Garfield Road East across First Ponds Creek is also shown (Figure 39).

The 1986 aerial photograph shows additional structures on the Rummery property, although overall development remains sparse (Figure 40). New features include a horse track in the northern section, and the fireworks manufactory on Windsor Road to the south. On the western side of Junction Road, two additional groups of structures are shown (three in total), and another horse track. Within Portion 1, the photograph shows subdivision and development of the northern part of the Nu Welwyn property, and some limited additional development along the western side of Clarke Street also.

3.2.2 Portion 2 - Martin Portion 2 of the Parish of Gidley was granted to John Martin. The property consisted of 530 acres and was bounded by O'Connell's land to the north and west, Rouse's property to the south, and Windsor Road to the east. The date of the grant, and early history of the property, are not presently known.

By 1865, Portion 2 was in the possession of Samuel Terry. Plans from 1867, 1881, and 1885 indicate that Terry remained in possession through to the mid 1880s (Figure 18 and Figure 23). Samuel Henry Terry (1833-1887) was the son of John Terry (himself the son of Samuel Terry, the Botany Bay Rothschild) and Eleanor Terry (the daughter of Richard Rouse) (Walsh 1976). He was born at Box Hill, which he inherited following his father's death in 1842, along with 5000 acres at Yass Plains. Terry went on to acquire substantial additional property on his own account, and, in addition to his business affairs, was a member of parliament from 1859. As his residence was in Ashfield, and the main family property was Box Hill, it is unlikely that Terry occupied Portion 2 personally.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 52 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

The 1885 plan of Windsor Road shows the eastern strip of Portion 2, along the road (Figure 23). There was a stock yard on the corner of Garfield Road East and Windsor Road, then paddocks to the south, described, from north to south, as bush paddock, cleared paddock, bush land, and cultivation. The fence along the road is described as 'old split three rail'.

The 1925 plan shows one structure within Portion 2, off Garfield Road East, and a fenced area near the centre of the property (Figure 24). The 1947 aerial photograph shows that most of Portion 2 had been cleared of vegetation, with the exception of the north-western section (Figure 25). There was a small orchard adjacent to the structure off Garfield Road East, and the south-eastern part of the property appears to have been under cultivation. There appears to have been a second group of structures, in the location of the fenced area shown in the 1925 plan.

In 1950, a large part of Portion 2 was bought by John Edwin Fitzgerald Burns, of Smithfield, knacker (from Sydney Henry Randall, pig farmer) (LPI Vol.6189 Fol.121). It was presumably at this time that the present abattoir was established. In 1960, the property was transferred to Burns Animal Food Company Pty Ltd (LPI Vol.6917 Fol.5).

The 1956 aerial photograph again shows two main groups of structures; one off Garfield Road East, and the other towards the centre of the property (Figure 29). Two or three smaller structures are shown off Windsor Road, in the south-eastern part of the property. In 1958, plans were drawn up for the widening of Windsor Road, involving the resumption of a strip of land along the eastern boundary of Portion 2 (Figure 33 and Figure 34). The only development shown in this strip of land consists of three advertising signs; from north to south 'Penfolds Wine', 'Maison Marny' and 'Rosella', and a wire fence along the eastern boundary.

The 1965 aerial photograph shows the same three groups of structures, and a fourth in the south- western part of the property, accessed off Clarke Street (Figure 36). Substantial terracing and/or irrigation trenching has been undertaken across the eastern part of the property, particularly in that area associated with the present Burns Pet Foods establishment. The 1969 plan showing the proposed widening of Garfield Road East, does not indicate any development along the northern boundary of the property (Figure 38).

By 1986, additional development had occurred on the Burns part of Portion 2 (Figure 40). Large ponds had also been created on the property to the west, fronting Garfield Road East. Other additional features included a horse track, in the south-western part of Portion 2.

3.2.3 Portions 5 and 6 - Rouse Portions 5 and 6 were granted to Richard Rouse in 1818 and 1816 respectively. Rouse (1774-1852) arrived in the colony from England in 1801, as a free settler (Lenehan 1967). He was given a property at North Richmond, on the Hawkesbury River, and later moved to Parramatta when he was appointed superintendent of the lumberyard in 1805. As a result of his support for Governor Bligh, Rouse lost his official position following the Rum Rebellion. However, he was reinstated by Macquarie in 1810.

It is likely that Rouse was in occupation of Portion 6 (450 acres) from 1813, although the grant was not formalised until 1816, and he built his family residence on the property. Portion 5 (150 acres) was granted to Rouse in 1818. Official records from that year note that Rouse had cleared 100 acres of his property, and that his livestock consisted of 10 horses, 195 horned cattle, 300 sheep and 40 hogs (GML Nov 2010: 8). He was growing maize, wheat, barley, oats, peas and potatoes, and also had an orchard and garden. In 1823, Rouse bought Portion 9 (600 acres) to the south (GML Nov 2010: 8). Artefact Heritage (June 2013: 11) suggests that Rouse also acquired Portion 8, but this is not supported by other studies (see Figure 7). The Rouse family moved from their property in Parramatta to the new residence at Rouse Hill in between 1818 and 1825 (AHMS Sept 2006: 10). Rouse managed his other properties from his base at Rouse Hill. These included 4000 acres north of

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 53 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Bathurst at Guntawang on the Cudgegong River (Lenehan 1967), places which are reflected in the current street naming. The Rouse Hill property remained in the ownership of the Rouse family until 1978, although subdivision of the property from 1951 onwards reduced the land surrounding house to 8.15 hectares by 1975 (Artefact Heritage, June 2013: 16).

The 1885 plan of Windsor Road shows Portion 6 in the ownership of Edwin Rouse. That section of the property adjacent to Windsor Road, and to the north of the junction with Annangrove Road, is noted as 'cultivation'. Land further to the north is described as 'paddocks'. The 1925 plan suggests that the only substantial development on the property consisted of the house and adjacent outbuildings, which group is located outside the study area (Figure 24). The 1947 aerial photograph shows the eastern part of Portion 6 cleared of vegetation, with an area under cultivation to the west of the Rouse Hill House group (Figure 25). The western part of Portion 6, and that part of Portion 5 included in the study area, were covered with vegetation. The 1956 aerial photograph shows both Portions in a similar state, although the electricity easement has been created (Figure 29).

As noted above, subdivision of the Rouse Hill estate commenced in 1951. A 1957 plan shows the subdivision of the land along the present Tallawong Street (Figure 30). The 1958 plan for the widening of Windsor Road, shows the acquisition of a strip of land along the eastern boundary of Portion 6 (Figure 34 and Figure 35). The plan shows a structure described as a fibro cottage with galvanised iron roof and brick porch. Fencing around the cottage included paling, two-rail and split fence, while the fencing along the road is described as 'very old split post and rail fence'. This cottage is likely to have been demolished as a result of the roadworks undertaken at this time.

The 1965 aerial photograph shows a dramatic change in Portions 5 and 6 (Figure 36). Guntawong, Worcester, Cudgegong, Tallawong and Macquarie Roads had all been laid out, and the adjoining land had been divided into relatively small lots. Development was concentrated along the northern side of Guntawong Road and along Tallawong, but several of the lots along the other streets had also been developed. The 1986 aerial shows increased development, concentrated along Guntawong, Tallawong and Schofields Roads (Figure 40). However, numerous lots remained vegetated and undeveloped.

3.2.4 Portion 8 - Bigg Portion 8, consisting of 200 acres, was granted to Joseph Bigg (or Bigge) in 1815. Bigg had come to the colony with Governor Macquarie and his family, to work as their coachman (Artefact Heritage June 2013: 11). Bigg also owned Portion 7, to the west, called Argowan, and this second property was the location of his residence.

The 1842 plan does not appear to show any development on the property (Figure 13). By 1879, Portion 8 was in the possession of Mrs Muller (Figure 17). It may later have been incorporated into the Pye family estate (Artefact Heritage June 2013:11). However, the 1925 plan also indicates that no substantial development had taken place (Figure 24). The 1947 aerial photograph shows that the property had been cleared of vegetation, and that tracks ran roughly along the northern and eastern boundaries, but no development is evident (Figure 25). The 1956 image is similar, although the northern track is not as evident, and regrowth is apparent (Figure 29).

By 1965, at least part of the property appears to have been subdivided (Figure 36). Market gardens had been established on two of the southern lots, fronting Schofields Road. A number of groups of structures are also shown. By 1986, more of the regrowth vegetation had been cleared, and market gardening had been extended to cover much of this part of the property (Figure 40).

3.2.5 Portion 9 - Faultless Portion 9, consisting of 600 acres, was granted to John Faultless in 1818. Faultless had arrived as a free settler in 1814 (SRNSW: Colonial Secretary Index). He was listed as due to receive a grant in 1814, and also received cattle from the Government herds between 1814 and 1819. In 1822, his

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 54 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS residence is listed as Vinegar Hill, and he received an assigned convict. The available details suggest that Faultless did take up occupation of Portion 9. It is likely that any development on the property would have been located close to Windsor Road, and therefore outside the present study area.

An 1822 advertisement describes the property:

To be sold by Private Contract, a Farm containing 600 Acres, situate on the Windsor Road, a considerable part of which has been cleared, and is now under cultivation, with suitable Erections thereon. Also, a Herd of Cattle, in good condition. Application to be made to Mr. C. Walker, Parramatta; or to the Proprietor, Mr. John Faultless, on the Premises.

(The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 8 February 1822, p. 2).

The property was sold to Richard Rouse (Artefact Heritage, June 2013: 11), who already owned the adjacent Portions 5 and 6 (see Section 3.2.3). It then remained part of the Rouse Hill estate through to the subdivisions of the mid-twentieth century. The 1842 plan shows only the western part of Portion 9; this is covered in vegetation, and no development is evident (Figure 13). Similarly, the 1925 plan shows no substantial development on that part of Portion 9 included in the study area (Figure 24). No development is evident in the 1947 and 1956 aerial photographs, and the property is still largely covered in vegetation, although there is a track roughly along the northern boundary (Figure 25).

A subdivision plan from 1957 shows Tallawong and Macquarie Roads, and the small lots created along either side (Figure 30). By 1965, a handful of these lots had been cleared and developed, while the rest of the property remained under vegetation (Figure 36). By 1986, it appears that most of the lots were occupied, with a number of market gardens on the properties fronting Schofields Road (Figure 40).

3.3 Summary

The study area comprises parts or all of seven portions of the Parishes of St Matthew and Gidley, which were granted in the period from 1810 to 1818. Two of the portions (1 and 95) were consolidated in O’Connell’s Riverstone / Mount Macquarie Estate, and three (5, 6 and 9) in Rouse’s Rouse Hill Estate. A sixth portion (2) was acquired by Samuel Henry Terry, who also owned the Box Hill estate, on the opposite side of Windsor Road. The seventh (8) was incorporated into Bigg’s Argown estate.

The nineteenth century agricultural uses of the properties involved clearing of vegetation, cultivation, establishment of orchards, and grazing. The principal structures on the estates appear in all cases to have been located outside the boundaries of the study area. However, less substantial structures, such as stock yards, are known to have been present in places. The Rouse Hill estate (Portions 5, 6 and 9) remained intact through to the 1950s. Portion 2, to the north, was subdivided, but into only a few large lots, and the bulk of this property was used as a pig farm, and then as a knackery with associated pasture from 1950 through to the present.

The Riverstone estate was subdivided in stages, from the 1880s onwards. However, most of the small lots included in the present study area were bought in two parcels, by members of the Rummery family, who were already well established in the area. The house Nu Welwyn was built on one of these parcels, and it appears that a house was also built on the other but has since been demolished.

Subdivision of the estates, with the exception of Portion 2, into much smaller residential / semi-rural lots was undertaken in the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1980s, most of these lots had been developed by the construction of houses and their associated outbuildings and agricultural structures. Market gardening appears to have been a common use of the properties, as it is well suited to the

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 55 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS size of the smaller lots. However, it should be noted that this form of agriculture is particularly distinctive in aerial photography, which is the main form of documentary evidence used for the later period, and this may skew the interpretation somewhat.

The documentary evidence indicates that the vast majority of the standing structures within the study area date to the late twentieth century, from c1955 to c1985. There may be two or three structures from the early twentieth century, along that stretch of Windsor Road to the north of Garfield Road East. There may be remains of another, to the south of Garfield Road East and in line with the line of Junction Road, although these are likely to have been affected by the subsequent development now evident on this property (Lot 1 DP 523552).

Only one structure built during the late nineteenth century is known to remain; the house Nu Welwyn (see Section 2.3.1.1). Archaeological evidence of the other Rummery house may also be present, in the area to the north of Garfield Road East and east of Junction Road. As the only evidence presently available for this house is the 1925 plan, the exact location is not known, but it may be in the vicinity of the property presently defined as Lot 23 in DP 30458.

Apart from Nu Welwyn, it is unlikely that standing structures from the nineteenth century are present within the study area. The principal residences of the estates concerned are known to have been located elsewhere. Less substantial structures, associated with agricultural use of the properties, may have been built on the various historic land parcels, but they are not identifiable in the documentary records accessed during research for this assessment. Further to this, it is considered to be unlikely that more research would assist in identifying the locations of any such structures, as this type of building was often not considered worthy of documentation. Any archaeological remains of such buildings, that is, the agricultural structures, are likely to be relatively insubstantial and to have been disturbed to various degrees by subsequent development.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 56 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 11 1813 plan showing the study area (J.Burr and G.Ballisat, 'Plan of the allotments of ground, granted from the Crown in New South Wales, State Library NSW, http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/albumview.aspx?itemID=903954&acmsid=0).

Figure 12 1840-9 Map of the Copenhagen Estate, showing Rouse's house on the opposite side of Windsor Road (National Library of Australia, Map f375-e).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 57 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 13 Detail of the 1842 plan showing the study area (J Musgrave, Plan of part of the Windsor district contained between the Old Richmond Road and the Road from Windsor, State Library NSW).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 58 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 14 1859 subdivision plan of Riverstone (Reuss and Browne).

Figure 15 Detail of the 1864 subdivision plan of Riverstone (Plan of Riverstone near Windsor to be sold by Auction by T.W. Bowden On The Ground Decr 3rd 1864).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 59 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 16 1867 plan of Guntawong Road. Note that the plan is oriented with north to the left (Plan of a road from the Windsor Road via the Riverstone Railway Station at Eastern Creek to the Blacktown Road, LPI Crown Plan 502.1603).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 60 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 17 1879 plan of Schofields Road (Plan of road from Schofield's Siding to Rouse Hill, Parish of Gidley, Co. Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 1803.1603).

Figure 18 Detail of the 1881 subdivision plan of Portion 1 (Subdivision of part of the Riverstone Estate at Riverstone in the Parish of Gidley, LPI DP 712).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 61 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 19 Detail of the 1884 subdivision of part of Portion 95 (Rosebery Park near Riverstone, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland LPI DP 1459).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 62 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 20 1885 plan of Windsor Road; First Ponds Creek to Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603).

Figure 21 1885 plan of Windsor Road; to the south of Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 63 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 22 1885 plan of Windsor Road; Portion 2 (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603).

Figure 23 1885 plan of Windsor Road; Portions 2 and 6 (LPI Crown Plan 3172.1603).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 64 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 24 1925 plan with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red, and the stuctures within the study area circled in green. Note that the roads may have been updated in 1942 (New South Wales, Windsor: no. 416 zone 8, prepared by Australian Section Imperial General Staff, State Library of NSW, http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/albumView.aspx?itemID=917966&acmsid=0).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 65 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 25 1947 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red (LPI).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 66 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 26 Undated plan, probably from the early 1950s, showing that part of the study area to the north of Garfield Road East (Electricity Commission of NSW, Carlingford-Lithgow 132 kv Transmission Line Index Plan, LPI Crown Plan 16981.3000).

Figure 27 1951 plan showing the transmission easement off Junction Road (Plan of easement being part of Lots 4 & 16, Sec.28, D.P.1459, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 13870.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 67 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 28 1955 plan showing the transmission easement to the west of Junction Road (Carlingford to Lithgow 132kV Transmission Line Plan, showing site of easement proposed to be resumed for transmission line, Parish of St Matthew, County of Cumberland, LPI Crown Plan 15915.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 68 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 29 1956 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundary of the study area marked in red (LPI).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 69 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 30 1957 plan of the subdivision of the area on either side of Tallawong Road (Plan of subdn. of part of the land in CsT Vol.1381 Fols. 132 & 133, Parish of Gidley, County of Cumberland, LPI DP 30186).

Figure 31 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road to the south of Junction Road (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road, LPI Crown Plan 17902.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 70 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 32 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Junction Road and Garfield Road East (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road, LPI Crown Plan 17903.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 71 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 33 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Garfield Road East and Nelson Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17782.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 72 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 34 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Nelson Road and Box Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17783.3000).

Figure 35 1958 plan of the proposed widening of Windsor Road between Box Road and Annangrove Road (Plan of realignment .. in connection with the proposed widening of part of Windsor Road between Showground Road and Garfield Road, LPI Crown Plan 17784.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 73 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 36 1965 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundary of the study area marked in red (LPI).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 74 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 37 1968 plan of the proposed creation of the stretch of Junction Road to the south of Crown Street (Plan of proposed road, County Cumberland, Municipality Blacktown, LPI Crown Plan 30859.1603).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 75 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 38 1969 plan of the proposed upgrading of Garfield Road East (Plan of realignment … in connection with the proposed widening of part of Garfield Road East, LPI Crown Plan 22195.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 76 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 39 1969 plan showing the proposed widening of Garfield Road East (LPI Crown Plan 22196.3000).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 77 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 40 1986 aerial photograph, with the approximate boundaries of the study area marked in red (LPI).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 78 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

4 SITE INSPECTION

4.1 Survey Details

The study area was inspected by Fenella Atkinson on 12 June and 23 October 2014. The site inspection was conducted on foot along public thoroughfares, and involved only limited access to private properties. It was not a comprehensive survey of the study area, but rather was intended to provide a broad overview, along with targeted inspection of heritage items and potential heritage items identified through the documentary research.

4.2 Site Description

4.2.1 Overview Commencing at the eastern end of Guntawong Road, Riverstone East Precinct is bounded on the north-east by Windsor Road, on the west by First Ponds Creek, on the south by Schofields Road, and on the south-east by an irregular line following cadastral boundaries back to the starting point (Figure 1). It incorporates all or sections of Junction Road, Garfield Road East, Clarke Street, Riverstone Road, Cranbourne Street, Guntawong Road, Worcester Road, Cudgegong Road, Tallawong Road, Macquarie Road, Gordon Road and Oak Street. A transmission line and easement runs through this part of the study area.

The western part of the study area is within the First Ponds Creek catchment, and includes a number of tributaries and a stretch of the eastern floodplain of the Creek. The eastern part of the study area is within the Killarney Chain of Ponds catchment and again includes a number of tributaries of that watercourse. Dams have been created along all of the tributaries of both First Ponds Creek and Killarney Chain of Ponds, in addition to numerous locations at low points in the landscape and along ephemeral drainage lines.

Most of the study area is within the Blacktown Soil Landscape, with a topography of gently undulating rises, which is subject to localised seasonal waterlogging (Bannerman & Hazelton 2011). Along First Ponds Creek is a low-lying strip of the South Creek Soil Landscape. This landscape is subject to seasonal waterlogging and localised permanently high watertables. Another section of this second soil landscape is present along a tributary of Killarney Chain of Ponds, within the Burns Pet Food property.

The study area is presently divided, in the main, into small semi-rural lots, occupied as residences and for small-scale agricultural uses. Agriculture includes poultry farming, market gardening, and horticulture. Small numbers of livestock are kept on a number of properties, including goats, alpacas and horses. The largest commercial property in the study area is the Burns Pet Food establishment, on the south-western corner of Garfield Road East and Windsor Road. There is also a former fireworks factory, to the north of Garfield Road East, and a Buddhist temple on Oak Street. There is very little public land, with the exception of a section of the Rouse Hill Regional Park.

4.2.2 Detail Most of the smaller lots within the study area have been developed by the construction of single dwellings near the street frontage. These are predominantly fibro-clad timber-framed structures, dating from the 1950s and 1960s; and brick structures, dating from the 1970s and 1980s (Figure 41 to Figure 44). Some appear slightly older, such as the weatherboard house at 163 Tallawong Road (Figure 45). It is common for two houses, one older and one newer, to be found on a single property (Figure 46 and Figure 47). There is a wide range of agricultural structures present, depending on the

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 79 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS use of the property (see, eg, Figure 48). However, the documentary evidence indicates that the date range of these structures is likely to be similar to the housing, that is, from the 1950s to the 1980s.

The structures in the area to the north of Garfield Road East are similar in nature and date to those in the southern part of the study area (Figure 49). However, the lots are slightly larger, and development is therefore slightly less dense. Worked sandstone blocks were identified at 307 Garfield Road East (Figure 50). As noted above (see Section 3.2.1), a former Rummery house is thought to have been located in this general area, possibly dating to the late nineteenth century, although the exact location is not known.

To the south of Garfield Road East are two large commercial properties. The smaller of these consists of a large building, three dams and paved driveway and car-parking areas (Figure 51). The larger is the Burns Pet Food property, established in c.1950, and located on the corner of Windsor Road and Garfield Road East (Figure 52 and Figure 53). The establishment consists of three complexes of buildings, several dams and channels, paved tracks and carparking areas, and stock paddocks.

Most of the roads in the study area are paved with asphalt and have gravel shoulders and no formed kerbing or guttering (Figure 54). Concrete culverts carry the roads across minor drainage lines (Figure 55). Riverstone Road, however, has a gravel surface, and meanders somewhat within the road corridor (Figure 56). Windsor and Schofields Roads, on the boundaries of the study area, have recently been upgraded (Figure 57). The southern end of Tallawong Road has been realigned to join the upgraded section of Schofields Road (Figure 58).

The house Nu Welwyn is located on a crest, at 4 Clarke Street, on the eastern side of the street (Figure 59 to Figure 65). It is a single-storey brick structure with corrugated iron roof, and appears to have been built in two or more phases. It appears possible that the earliest part of the house originally faced south. There are a number of established trees in the yard, and two large agricultural outbuildings in close proximity. The house cannot be seen from the north, as it is obscured by a neighbouring, later house. However, there is no development on the slope to the south, and the house can therefore be seen from the low ground to the south.

The present Rouse Hill House property, managed by Sydney Living Museums, is located outside, but immediately adjacent to, the study area. The buildings are located on a ridge line, and are visible from Worcester Street to the west, although obscured in places by more recent structures (Figure 66 and Figure 67). They are also visible from Guntawong Street immediately to the north (Figure 68). However, views to the group from the street to the east and west are obscured by a more recent house and dense vegetation respectively. There is a long viewline to the north-west, from the street immediately to the north of the Rouse Hill House group, with very little development apparent.

To the south and west of the Rouse Hill House property is the Rouse Hill Regional Park, a section of which extends into the study area, on the eastern side of Worcester Street (Figure 70 and Figure 71). The Park is managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This area is largely covered in lawn, but includes an asphalt-surfaced driveway with a masonry entrance gate, walking tracks, a dam, and picnic shelters. The Rouse Hill House group is visible on the ridge from across and within the Park (Figure 72).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 80 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 41 151 Tallawong Road. Figure 42 61 Macquarie Road.

Figure 43 131 Tallawong Road. Figure 44 42 Tallawong Road.

Figure 45 163 Tallawong Road. Figure 46 18 Clarke Street.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 81 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 47 136 Tallawong Road. Figure 48 Poultry sheds at 100 Worcester Road.

Figure 49 View north along Junction Road Figure 50 Worked sandstone blocks, from Garfield Road East. 307 Garfield Road East.

Figure 51 Commercial premises fronting Figure 52 View across the Burns Pet Garfield Road East. Food property, from an adjoining property on Guntawong Road.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 82 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 53 View across the lower part of the Figure 54 Guntawong Road, looking Burns Pet Food property, from an adjoining property west from Cudgegong Road. on Guntawong Road.

Figure 55 Concrete culvert in Guntawong Figure 56 Riverstone Road, looking east Street. from Clarke Street.

Figure 57 Schofields Road, looking west. Figure 58 Former alignment of the southern end of Tallawong Road.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 83 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 59 Nu Welwyn from Clarke Street. Figure 60 Nu Welwyn from Clarke Street.

Figure 61 Nu Welwyn outbuildings from Figure 62 Nu Welwyn from the south. Clarke Street.

Figure 63 Looking south along Clarke Figure 64 View to the north-west from the Street. Nu Welwyn is on the rise on the left, but front of the Nu Welwyn property. obscured by the more recent house to the north.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 84 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 65 View to the south from the front Figure 66 View east to the Rouse Hill House of the Nu Welwyn property. group from Worcester Street.

Figure 67 View east to the Rouse Hill House Figure 68 View south to the Rouse Hill group from Worcester Street. House group from Guntawong Street.

Figure 69 View to the north from Figure 70 Entrance to Rouse Hill Regional Guntawong Road, from immediately to the north of Park, off Worcester Street. the Rouse Hill House group.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 85 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 71 Rouse Hill Regional Park, looking Figure 72 The Rouse Hill House group from south-east from Worcester Street. across Rouse Hill Regional Park.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 86 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

5 NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE VALUES

Historical occupation of the Riverstone East Precinct has involved substantial changes to the landscape, particularly with regard to vegetation clearance and creation of dams. However, development has been relatively dispersed, and has tended to be conservative in nature. That is, new development has been added, while the older modifications have often been retained rather than demolished or otherwise obscured. This 'layering' of the material evidence of past occupation within the study area means that the history of the area is readily apparent.

Windsor Road, running along the eastern boundary of the subject area, approximately follows the same alignment that was originally laid out in 1794 and formalised in c1810. Rouse Hill House and some of the main outbuildings remain standing (outside the study area), and the boundaries of the estate are still evident in current cadastral boundaries. Rouse's connections are referenced in the naming of the streets created during the subdivision of the estate. The earlier rural setting of the House is apparent as a result of the creation of Rouse Hill Regional Park, and the open outlook to the north-west across Portion 2 has been preserved by the use of this property by Burns Pet Food.

Similarly, the setting of the later house Nu Welwyn has been partially preserved, and is easily appreciated, particularly from the south. The former agricultural use of the property is referenced in the large agricultural outbuildings. The distinct character of Portion 2, consisting in the main of large relatively sparsely developed properties, means that this grant is readily apparent in the landscape. That section of Portion 95 that is included in the study area, most of which was acquired by the Rummery family, also has its own character, with slightly larger lots and more sparse development, when compared to the Rouse subdivision in the south.

The present structures within the study area largely date to two main periods; c1960s and c1980s; reflecting two key periods of population growth and development in the region. In many cases, the earlier structures on a property have been retained alongside the new.

The Precinct boundaries follow the natural boundary of First Ponds Creek, the historic boundaries of Windsor and Schofields Roads, and cadastral boundaries created by the subdivision of the Rouse Hill House estate. Although First Ponds Creek has been a significant landscape feature through the historical period, this boundary cuts across historical properties, specifically Portions 95, 1, 5 and 8. Similarly, the south-eastern boundary, while following the cadastral boundaries of the subdivision, cuts through the former Rouse Hill House estate.

A number of specific items of non-Indigenous heritage significance (or potential significance) have been identified within the Riverstone East Precinct, or in close proximity to the Precinct (Figure 73). These are discussed individually below.

5.1 Nu Welwyn

The history of Nu Welwyn is outlined above (Section 2.3.1.1). The listed heritage curtilage covers a small part of Lot 5 DP 229296, including the house and yard. It does not include all of the present outbuildings, or the locations of the historical outbuildings as indicated by the available documentary evidence. In addition, the documentary record indicates that the Nu Welwyn property, from 1881 to c1928, consisted of a strip of land approximately 190m wide running along the eastern side of Clarke Street from Garfield Road East in the north to Guntawong Road in the south (Figure 74). At one stage, the property also included Lot 9 of Section O; the property on the northwest corner of Clarke Street and Riverstone Road. In the late 1920s, that part of the property to the south of Riverstone Road was sold off.

The original historical boundaries of that part of the property to the north of Riverstone Road are still apparent in the present cadastral boundaries. This area has been only very sparsely developed since

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 87 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS subdivision, and the rural setting of the house and outbuildings have therefore been substantially retained. For this reason also, and because the house is set on a rise, the dwelling has expansive viewlines to and from the south. The configuration of the house suggests that it may originally have been oriented south. To the north, the viewlines are interrupted by a more recently constructed dwelling.

The northern part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate, together with the standing house, provides tangible evidence of a significant phase in the history of the local area. It forms the remnant of a moderately sized estate, belonging to one branch of a locally significant family; the Rummerys. It stands in contrast to the earlier and larger estates established along Windsor Road, in this case particularly the Rouse Hill estate, and the later and smaller rural/residential lots.

5.2 Potential Rummery House Remains

A second house, similar in date to Nu Welwyn and built by another branch of the Rummery family, is thought to have been located in that part of the study area to the north of Garfield Road East and east of Junction Road. The exact nature and location of the former structure is not known. It is shown in the relatively schematic 1925 plan but is not apparent in the 1947 aerial photograph. In addition, while it is not known whether or not any remains of the house may exist as buried archaeological deposits within the study area, dressed sandstone blocks observed within the property known as 307 Garfield Road East may indicate remains of the house in this location.

Taking into consideration the date of the house, the absence of documentary evidence regarding its use and configuration and its probable association with the regionally important Rummery family, any remains of the building would likely be local heritage significance. Additional investigation would be required in order to accurately determine the location, nature and condition of any archaeological remains of this house.

In addition, there were significant historical connections between this property and the Box Hill Inn, through ownership and occupation by the Rummery family. No documentary evidence has been found to indicate that the viewlines between the two were of importance to the family. However, given the location of the Portion 95 house on a rise, it is likely that each structure was visible from the other. The presence of a track between the two supports this interpretation (see Figure 24).

5.3 Rouse Hill House

The history of Rouse Hill House is outlined above (Section 2.3.1.2 and Section 3.2.3). The heritage listed curtilage surrounding the house and principal outbuildings is located immediately outside the study area (Figure 75). However, the study area includes much of the original Rouse Hill estate (which had been consolidated by the mid-1820s, and remained intact through to c.1950). The historical setting of the house, within a large agricultural estate, has been substantially reduced as a result of the subdivision, sale and development of much of the historic property.

However, the listing of the immediate surrounds, together with the creation of Rouse Hill Regional Park, has resulted in conservation of part of the property as public open space. In addition, the adjacent section of Windsor Road has been realigned, in order to take the increasingly busy road further from the house. An area to the north-west of the house is set aside as a Cultural Heritage Landscape Area (CHLA) in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. The reasoning behind the selection of this area as a CHLA is related to the heritage significance of Rouse Hill House, however the area is in fact located outside the historic Rouse Hill estate boundary. However, the present lack of development across this area contributes to the existence of substantial viewlines from the present Rouse Hill House.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 88 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

A study was undertaken in 2003 to address the issue of an appropriate curtilage for the house (Conybeare Morrison & Partners Oct 2003). The recommended curtilage appears to have been determined based upon the contemporary rural setting of the house, and the contemporary viewlines to and from the house, rather than the historic boundaries of the Rouse Hill estate. The curtilage extends across a large part of the present study area. The majority of this area has already been subdivided and developed, although at a low density for residential and rural use.

5.4 Windsor Road

The heritage significance of Windsor Road has been addressed in a number of previous studies and listings (see Section 2). For the most part, the heritage significance is associated with the alignment and material remains of the road, neither of which will be affected by development within the study area. The specific views identified in the CMP (CLSP 2005) are similarly unlikely to be affected (see Section 2.3.2.3). However, the CMP does suggest that more general views may also be of relevance, for instance in the assessment of aesthetic significance (CLSP: 56):

The aesthetic significance of the Windsor and Old Windsor Roads is understood on three levels as follows:

The roads enable and are an inherent component of the aesthetic experience of the wider cultural landscape of the Cumberland plain. For example, there are strong visual connections between the road and historic homesteads such as Box Hill, Rouse Hill, Bella Vista, and Tebbutt's Observatory, as well as views of Windsor, and views of monuments, such as the Pearce family cemetery and Vinegar Hill.

The road contributes to the visual understanding of the aesthetic character of the numerous individual historic places located along it (e.g., the aesthetic appreciation of a colonial-period inn or toll house in part relies upon understanding the building's relationship to the road.)

Finally, vestigial sections of the older 'country lane' parts of the roads have aesthetic value of their own as evocative reminders of the earlier rural character of the immediate area.

It also notes (CLSP: 69):

The significance of the Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road is closely tied to their visual connections with the wider cultural landscape and what remains of their rural character. This is all the more important in what is now the fastest growing area in Sydney. Areas of visual sensitivity and noteworthy views are shown on the maps with items of environmental heritage.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 89 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 73 Non-Indigenous heritage items of relevance to the study area (source of base map: LPI, SIXMaps).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 90 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 74 Nu Welwyn, showing the listed property and the larger historical estate.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 91 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 75 Various interpretations of the Rouse Hill House curtilage.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 92 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

6 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT

6.1 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines

Development with the potential to affect the historical heritage significance of the study area is regulated by a number of statutory instruments. The principal relevant instruments are outlined below.

6.1.1 Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act 1977 establishes the State Heritage Register (SHR) and protects items listed on the SHR, and also protects relics. A relic is defined as:

any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that: a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and b) is of State or local heritage significance

It is an offence to harm an item listed on the SHR or a relic without a permit issued by the Heritage Division on behalf of the Heritage Council. For an item listed on the SHR, the permit is issued under Section 60 of the Act. Certain activities may be permitted under an Exemption Notification, which must be endorsed by the Heritage Division. For a relic, the permit is issued under Section 140 of the Act. Again, certain activities may be permitted under an Exception Notification, which must be endorsed by the Heritage Division.

There are no SHR-listed items within the study area, although the adjacent Rouse Hill House is listed. There is some potential for the presence of relics within the study area. Although a comprehensive historical archaeological assessment has not been undertaken, the potential for remains of a late nineteenth century house (belonging to the Rummery family) in the area to the north of Garfield Road East has been identified (see Section 5.2).

6.1.2 Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988

The Blacktown LEP 1988 is an environmental planning instrument developed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The LEP provides for the protection of the cultural heritage of the Local Government Area through listing identified heritage items (Schedule 2) and specifying requirements for any development which may affect these items (Division 3).

One item within the study area is listed in Schedule 2 of the LEP; Nu Welwyn, 4 Clarke Street. The listing covers only part of the property presently known as 4 Clarke Street (Lot 5 in DP 229296).

In general, regarding development affecting a heritage item:

(1) When is consent required?

The following development may only be carried out with development consent:

(a) demolishing or moving a heritage item,

(b) altering a heritage item or relic by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior, such as to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance,

(c) altering a heritage item by making structural changes to its interior,

(d) moving any relic, or excavating land and discovering, exposing or moving a relic,

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 93 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

(e) erecting a building on, or subdividing, land on which a heritage item is located.

…

(4) What must be included in assessing a development application?

Before granting a consent required by this clause, the consent authority must assess the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item.

The LEP also regulates development in the vicinity of a heritage item:

16A Development in the vicinity of heritage items

(1) Before granting consent to development in the vicinity of a heritage item, the consent authority must assess the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item.

(2) This clause extends to development:

(a) that may have an impact on the setting of a heritage item, for example, by affecting a significant view to or from the item or by overshadowing, or

(b) that may undermine or otherwise cause physical damage to a heritage item, or

(c) that will otherwise have any adverse impact on the heritage significance of a heritage item.

(3) The consent authority may refuse to grant any such consent unless it has considered a heritage impact statement that will help it assess the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance, visual curtilage and setting of the heritage item.

(4) The heritage impact statement should include details of the size, shape and scale of, setbacks for, and the materials to be used in, any proposed buildings or works and details of any modification that would reduce the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item.

Council has adopted the draft Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2013, but this has not yet been gazetted. The draft LEP also lists one item (Nu Welwyn) within the study area, and contains similar provisions for the protection of listed heritage items.

6.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 has been developed to assist in the planning for the redevelopment of the Growth Centres, including the present Riverstone East Precinct, which falls within the North West Growth Centre. With regard to cultural heritage, the SEPP is intended 'to protect and enhance land with natural and cultural heritage value'. The SEPP identifies an area within the study area as a cultural heritage landscape area, to which the following controls apply:

Consent is not to be granted to the carrying out of development to which this Part applies unless the consent authority has taken the following into consideration:

a) whether or not the development will adversely impact on the cultural heritage values of the Rouse Hill House Estate and its setting, having regard, in particular, to the following matters:

i. any proposed subdivision design and layout,

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 94 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

ii. the siting, height, bulk and scale of any proposed buildings or works (including any buildings or works likely to result from any proposed subdivision), iii. the materials and colours to be used in any proposed buildings, fences or other structures, iv. the extent, location and form of any proposed landscaping and its ability to reduce the visual impact of the development, v. the impact of the development on any archaeological relics,

b) a site analysis of the cultural heritage landscape area that assesses development that is responsive to the topography of the area and to other development in the vicinity,

c) a visual analysis that assesses the impact of the development on views to and from the Rouse Hill House Estate,

d) measures to minimise any adverse impact of the development on the cultural heritage values of Rouse Hill House Estate and its setting.

6.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations have been developed with regard to the relevant statutory requirements, as outlined above, and the historical heritage values of the Riverstone East Precinct, as investigated in the body of this document. The recommendations are intended to allow the historical heritage values of the study area to be conserved, and the past occupation of the area to be respected and recognised in the new redevelopment.

General

 The roads and cadastral boundaries representing significant historical property divisions should be retained (see Figure 10).

 The distinct character of the historical estates should be recognised in specific development controls; the Rummery section of Portion 95; the Nu Welwyn estate; Portion 2; and the Rouse Hill estate.

 Planning should be co-ordinated with that of the neighbouring Precincts (Area 20 and Riverstone) to allow the whole of the historical extent of the Rouse Hill estate to be recognised. Nu Welwyn

 The extent of the listed heritage item should be increased to correspond with the present property boundary (Lot 5 DP 229296) (Figure 76). This would assist in the protection of the standing structures, together with any other elements of the main homestead group that may remain.

 The northern part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate (to the north of Riverstone Road) should be retained as open space, with the exception of the heritage listed property (Figure 76). This would allow retention of that part of the original property that remains apparent, and viewlines to and from the homestead group.

 That part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate located to the west of Clarke Street should be retained as open space (the present Lot 9 Section O DP 712) (Figure 76). This would allow the historical access to First Ponds Creek to be re-established.

 Proposed development within the expanded listed item and the northern part of the historical Nu Welwyn estate (shaded green in Figure 76) should be subject to heritage

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 95 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

impact assessment, either by way of assessment specific to the proposed development or a more general document such as a conservation management plan. This would allow potential for heritage impact to be avoided or minimised.

 Subdivision and development within the southern part of the original estate associated with the house (Figure 76) should incorporate elements that allow the historical extent of the former estate to be understood. In particular, the property boundaries, as currently represented by Riverstone and Guntawong Road and Clarke Street should be retained; and the former eastern boundary should be represented in alignments such as cadastral boundaries and street and path alignments. Potential Rummery House Remains

 Further historical archaeological assessment and investigation should be undertaken to determine whether remains associated with the house are present, and if so, to assess their nature and condition.

 If associated archaeological remains are present and these have been preserved at a high level of integrity, these should be preserved in situ if possible. Such preservation is likely to require restrictions on development in the affected area.

 Existing view lines between the probable location of the former house, on the high ground within Portion 95, and the existing Box Hill Inn, should be conserved as far as possible. This would allow one element of the historical connection between the two properties to be retained. Rouse Hill House

 The extent of the curtilage of the listed heritage item should be increased to extend to Worcester Road in the west and Guntawong Road in the north (Figure 77). This would assist in the conservation of the setting of the main homestead group, and viewlines to and from the group and the surrounding area, and in reinforcing the connection of the listed item with the wider historical estate.

 If possible, the extended curtilage should be recognised in modifications to the local heritage listing (in the Environmental Heritage Schedule of the Blacktown LEP) and/or to the State Heritage Register listing, in order to give the area statutory protection. The relevant development controls would then apply to this extended curtilage.

 Proposed development within the expanded listed item should be subject to heritage impact assessment, either by way of assessment specific to the proposed development or a more general document such as a conservation management plan. This would allow potential for heritage impact to be avoided or minimised.

 Proposed development of the properties adjacent to and to the west of Worcester Road should be subject to heritage impact assessment. This would assist in the conservation of the setting of the main homestead group.

 The cultural heritage landscape area, as listed in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, should be extended to Guntawong Road in the south and Garfield Road East in the north (Figure 77). This should be retained as open space. The development controls within the SEPP should be amended accordingly, and should cover the extended listing. This would assist in conservation of viewlines to and from the main homestead group and the surrounding area.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 96 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Windsor Road

 The cultural heritage landscape area, as listed in SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, should be extended to Guntawong Road in the south and Garfield Road East in the north (Figure 77). This should be retained as open space. The development controls within the SEPP should be modified to address the potential for impact on the setting of this section of Windsor Road. This would allow a section of the rural setting of the road, which has been identified as being of heritage significance, to be retained.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 97 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 76 Nu Welwyn: recommendations.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 98 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 77 Rouse Hill House: recommended curtilage and precinct.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 99 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

7 POTENTIAL NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE IMPACT

7.1 Draft Indicative Layout Plan (Stages 1 and 2)

DPE has prepared a draft Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) showing the proposed zoning of Stages 1 and 2 of the Riverstone East Precinct (Figure 78). The decision initially to rezone only part of the Precinct is based on the expected availability of essential infrastructure services. Rezoning of the remainder of the Precinct is expected to be undertaken when services are available in this area, presently forecast for 2018.

Stage 1 will provide for approximately 1,800 dwellings, in low, medium and high density areas. It will also include an employment area, a general industrial area, local parks, a sporting field, and areas set aside for environmental and water management. Stage 2 will allow for approximately 1,400 dwellings, in low and medium density areas, and an environmental living area. It will also include a village centre, local parks, a playing field, an indicative school site, and areas set aside for water management.

Development within Stages 1 and 2 will be managed in accordance with conditions included in a Precinct-specific Development Control Plan and Appendix to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. Details of these documents are not yet available.

7.2 Potential Impact

The potential historical heritage impact of the ILP for Stages 1 and 2, with regard to the identified items, is outlined in Table 9. It should be noted that while the ILP itself will not result in heritage impact, as it is a planning instrument only and will not involve development, the projected developments as indicated in the ILP will, if implemented, involve impacts on identified heritage items:

 Nu Welwyn.

 Rouse Hill House (estate and broader curtilage only).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 100 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Table 9 Potential heritage impact as a result of the ILP for Stages 1 and 2.

Item Proposed rezoning Potential heritage impact Nu Welwyn The ILP for Stages 1 and 2 includes the curtilage of this item, as presently The recommended extended heritage curtilage of the item (comprising listed in the Draft Blacktown LEP 2013 (part Lot 5 DP 229296), and the the whole of Lot 5 DP 229296; see Figure 76) will be impacted by the whole of the former extent of the associated property. The northern section, construction of a new local road within this property, and the including the listed item, will be rezoned for Environmental Living, and will incorporation of the southern part of the Lot into the Sporting Field area. include two new local roads, one of which runs through the present Lot 5 DP Views to and from the item to the south (the principal viewline), as far 229296 immediately to the south of the listed item. To the south of this is a as the realigned Clarke Road, will be retained. The open semi-rural Sporting Field area, then the realigned route of Clarke Street. setting of the item, and views to and from the north, will be impacted by The remainder of the former property will include areas rezoned as Low and denser development to the north, additional local roads to the north and Medium Density Residential, an Indicative School Site, and Water south and playing fields to the south. However, an effort has been Management. The area to the west of Clarke Street, between Garfield Road made to minimise surrounding development, through use of the East and Riverstone Road will include areas rezoned for Water Management Environmental Living zoning to the north. As the land along First Ponds and Local Park. Creek will be rezoned for Water Management and Local Park, a connection from the item to the Creek will be evident, although this will not relate specifically to the former Lot 9 of Section O. To the south of the realigned Clarke Street, the former property boundary will be lost in the Indicative School Site (see Figure 76). The boundaries of that part of the former property to the south of Riverstone Road will be recognised in the alignment of a new local road. However, the connection between this part of the property and the listed heritage item will be difficult to discern as a result of the changes to the north of Riverstone Road. Development of the property formerly associated with the listed heritage item may impact any remnant associated features such as plantings, dams, fences and archaeological remains. Potential Rummery The ILP for Stages 1 and 2 does not extend across the location of this item. No impact is expected. House Remains

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 101 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Rouse Hill House The ILP for Stages 1 and 2 does not extend across the location of this item. The proposed rezoning will result in the obscuring of a section of the No impact is expected. former Rouse Hill estate boundary, which is presently evident in The ILP includes part of the western section of the former Rouse Hill estate. cadastral boundaries (see Figure 75). Part of the boundary, which is presently evident in road alignments and It will result in much denser development within the western edge of the property boundaries, will be traced by roads. However, the southwestern curtilage as recommended in the 2003 study, and will affect the western corner of the boundary, presently evident in cadastral boundaries, will be lost extent of the view-lines related to Rouse Hill House (see Figure 75). as a result of rezoning to General Industrial, Employment and Local Park. The ILP extends into the western edge of the heritage curtilage as recommended in the 2003 curtilage study. The establishment of this curtilage appears to have been based largely on view-lines to and from Rouse Hill House. The area within the curtilage will include areas rezoned as Low, Medium and High Density Residential, Village Centre, General Industrial, Employment, Local Park and Sporting Field. The ILP also indicates a number of additional roads in this area. Windsor Road The ILP for Stages 1 and 2 does not extend to the land adjacent to this item. No impact is expected.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 102 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

7.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are intended to address the potential historical heritage impact of the draft ILP (Stages 1 and 2), as outlined above (Section 7.2). They should be read in conjunction with the general recommendations (Section 6.2), which are considered still to apply, and should be referred to in the event that changes to the draft ILP are proposed. Responsibility for the broader requirements should be discussed between DPE and Blacktown City Council.

Nu Welwyn

Prior to the release of the land for development, an archival recording should be made of Nu Welwyn and the property formerly associated with the item. The recording should include photography and a survey, and a report outlining the history of the property and assessing the heritage significance of extant features and the historical archaeological potential of the property. This will form a basis for assessing any proposed development of the area. The remaining recommendations relating to Nu Welwyn should be reassessed in light of the results of this recording and report.

Subdivision and development within the original property associated with Nu Welwyn should incorporate heritage interpretation allowing the history of the property to be understood. An overall heritage interpretation strategy should be developed to guide individual developers, based on the results of the initial reporting (see above).

The proposed local road transecting Lot 5 DP 229296 should be realigned or removed, to allow the full extent of this Lot to be retained as one property.

The extent of the listed heritage item should be increased to correspond with the present property boundary (Lot 5 DP 229296).

Proposed subdivision of land within that part of the former Nu Welwyn property to the south and east of the realigned Clarke Street should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority. Depending on the results of this assessment, subsequent development may also require a Statement of Heritage Impact.

Proposed subdivision and development of that part of the former Nu Welwyn property to the north of the realigned Clarke Street should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority.

A building setback should be required for those lots adjacent to the former alignment of Clarke Street, to the north of the listed item Nu Welwyn. The setback should be adequate to reinstate and preserve views to and from the house along this alignment.

Rouse Hill House

Proposed subdivision of the area falling within the curtilage of Rouse Hill House, as recommended in the 2003 study, should be subject to a Statement of Heritage Impact for consideration by the relevant consent authority. Subsequent development should be designed with consideration of the results of the Statement of Heritage Impact, and in such a way as to avoid or minimise impact on views and landscape features of heritage significance.

Proposed subdivision of the area falling within the former Rouse Hill estate should retain the boundaries of the former estate, as presently evident in cadastral boundaries and roads.

Proposed development of the area falling within the former Rouse Hill estate should incorporate heritage interpretation allowing the extent and history of the property to be understood. An overall heritage interpretation strategy should be developed to guide individual developers.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 103 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 78 Draft Indicative Layout Plan for Stages 1 and 2 of the Riverstone East Precinct (Department of Planning and Environment).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 104 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

8 REFERENCES

AECOM, February 2011, 'Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Non-Indigenous Heritage: Precinct Planning', for Department of Planning.

AECOM, June 2012, 'Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Precinct Plan Non Indigenous Heritage Public Submissions Response', for Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

AHMS, November 2006, 'Christ Church, Rouse Hill, NSW: Historical Archaeology and Development Impact Assessment', for Anglican Church Property Trust.

AHMS, September 2005, 'Mean Fiddler Hotel, Rouse Hill, NSW: Historical Archaeological & Development Impact Assessment', for Lewis Land Group of Companies.

AHMS, June 2009, 'Archaeological Impact Assessment, Rouse Hill House Stage 1 Museum Education Facility', for Historic Houses Trust.

AHMS, September 2006, 'Excavation Report, Rouse Hill Potting Shed, Rouse Hill, NSW (Lot 1 Plan No. 815213)', for Historic Houses Trust.

AHMS, May 2010, 'Hawkesbury Road and Watch House, Rouse Hill, Test Excavation Report', for NSW Historic Trust.

AHMS, August 2014, 'Riverstone East Growth Centre Precinct: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment', draft, for the Department of Planning and Environment.

Artefact Heritage, June 2013, 'Rapid Transport Rail Facility: Non Indigenous Heritage Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impacts', for JBA.

Australia ICOMOS, 2013, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, Burwood.

Australia ICOMOS, November 2013a, Practice Note: Understanding and Assessing Cultural Significance, Version 1, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated.

Australia ICOMOS, November 2013b, Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice, Version 1, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated.

Barry, Garrett, et al, 1980, Riverstone-Schofields, a community survey, Riverstone High School, Riverstone.

Bickford, A and S Sullivan, 1984, 'Assessing the Research Significance of Historic Sites' in S Sullivan and S Bowdler, Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Biosis Research, March 2011, 'Water Related Services for the North West Growth Centre Second Release Precincts: Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report', for Sydney Water.

Casey and Lowe Associates, July 1993, 'Historical Archaeological Survey of the Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project (Stage 1) Works', for Brayshaw McDonald.

Casey and Lowe Associates, September 1993, 'Historical Archaeological Heritage Study and Assessment of Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road, Rouse Hill NSW', for Brayshaw McDonald.

Casey and Low, January 2004, 'Archaeological Assessment and Research Design: RH/39, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill', for Rouse Hill Infrastructure Stage 3: Second Ponds Creek.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 105 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners, August 2005, 'Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road: Conservation Management Plan', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Conybeare Morrison, February 2011, 'Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Precincts: Landscape and Visual Analysis', for the Department of Planning.

Corbett, N, 2010, 'Rouse Hill Farm and Family: A biographical approach to landscape archaeology', Unpublished Honours Thesis, Sydney University.

ENSR/AECOM, October 2008, 'Historic Heritage of the Riverstone and Alex Avenue Precincts', for Growth Centres Commission.

ERM, 2012, 'Marsden Park Historic Heritage Assessment', draft.

Gillespie, Maisie, and Jim Gillespie, 2006, 'Migrating from Scotland to Australia', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 5-6.

Godden Mackay Logan, November 2010, 'North West Growth Centre: Area 20 Precinct: Non Indigenous Heritage Assessment', for Department of Planning NSW.

Godden Mackay Logan, January 2011, 'Schofields Precinct: Non Indigenous Heritage Assessment', for Department of Planning.

Hazard, Diana, 2010, From rags to Richards: the story of Benjamin Richards founder of the Riverstone Meat Works: his ancestors, the company and his descendants 1810-2010, D.Hazard, Double Bay.

Heritage Branch, 2009, Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning.

Heritage Concepts, August 2004, 'Heritage Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact: First Ponds Creek Bridge, Box Hill, and Second Ponds Creek Bridge, Rouse Hill', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Heritage Concepts, December 2004, 'Heritage Strategic Plan: Old Windsor and Windsor Road Corridors', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Heritage Concepts, February 2005, 'Historical Archaeological Research Design and Excavation Methodology in support of S140 Permit Application: Windsor Road Upgrade between Mile End Road, Rouse Hill, and Boundary Road, Vineyard', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Heritage Concepts, September 2006, 'Summary Assessment of Brick Culvert and Associated Macadam Pavement in support of S144 Excavation Permit Variation Request, Windsor Road, Box Hill', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Heritage Concepts, October 2006, 'Assessment of In Situ Sandstone Ballast in support of S144 Excavation Permit Variation Request, Windsor Road, Box Hill', for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Heritage Council of NSW, 2001, New South Wales Historical Themes, online edition,

Heritage Office, 2001, Assessing Heritage Significance, NSW Heritage Office.

Heritage Office and DUAP, 1996, Archaeological Assessments (from the 1996 Heritage Manual).

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 106 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Hunter (Governor) to the Duke of Portland, 1 May 1799, in Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, Volume 2, 1797-1800, Governor's Despatches to and from England, The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney, 1914, pp.354-355.

Jonathan Falk Planning Consultants in association with Rodney Jensen and Associates, 1988, 'Blacktown Heritage Study', for Blacktown City Council.

Lenehan, Marjorie, 1967, 'Rouse, Richard (1774–1852)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, .

Lewis, Judith, 2009, 'Riverstone Post Office and Telephone Exchange', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 11-14.

Macquarie (Governor), 8 Dec 1810, 'Journal of a Tour of Governor Macquarie's first Inspection of the Interior of the Colony Commencing on Tuesday the 6th. Novr. 1810', original held in the Mitchell Library, Sydney, ML Ref: A778.

Morris, C., & G. Britton, August 2000, 'Colonial Landscapes of the Cumberland Plain and Camden, NSW: A Survey of Selected Pre-1860 Cultural Landscapes from Wollondilly to Hawkesbury LGAs', for National Trust of Australia (NSW).

Neal, Clarrie, 2006, 'The Produce Stores in Riverstone', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 22-24.

Nichols Wendi, 2004, 'Living in the ′70s', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 29-32.

'O'Connell, Sir Maurice Charles (1768–1848)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/oconnell-sir-maurice- charles-2517/text3405, published in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 25 September 2014.

Phillis, Rosemary, and Winsome Phillis, c.1998, A history of the Riverstone Cemetery, Riverstone and District Historical Society, Rouse Hill.

Phillis, Rosemary, 2004, The Riverstone Meatworks, Rosemary Phillis, Riverstone.

Phillis Rosemary, 2006, 'John McHugh – The Navy and the Korean War', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 29-32.

Seale, Shirley, 2004, 'Riverstone in the Great War (World War I)', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 46-54.

Seale, Shirley, 2009, 'Riverstone and the Floods', Riverstone and District Historical Society Journal, 28-36.

Sharpe, Alan 2000, Pictorial History Blacktown and District, Kingsclear Books Pty Ltd, Blacktown.

Stevens, Kylie, 2014, 'Thousands enjoy 'best yet' Riverstone Festival', Rouse Hill Courier, 19 March 2014.

Stevens, Kylie, 2014, 'Book brings soldiers' stories to life', Rouse Hill Courier, 18 September 2014.

Therin Archaeological Consulting, November 2003, 'Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment for the Proposed Upgrade of Windsor Road between Mile End Road, and Boundary Road, Vineyard', for Hyder Consulting.

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 107 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Walsh, G.P., 1976, 'Terry, Samuel Henry (1833–1887)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, .

Riverstone East Precinct Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment • March 2015 108